Sean MacCloud

2012-01-14T05:38:00.002-05:00

To feminist males who denounce submissive females as "sick"...

You are an adult male mammal who has more of a developed lordosis reflex than intromission reflex.

["Lordosis is mammal female butt in air reflex; intromission is mammal male thrust reflex; testosterone regulates.]

The sub chicks have a hyper expressed feminine lordosis reflex. (…Hyper expressed because of “nurture” contingencies that multi century old wasp liberalism simply deems bad. And that "deeming" is rooted in the ascendent untermensche morality. Ascending because of the "alpha beta gamma principle"[coup snowball toward runtification].)

You are actually more “sick”. (…Made “sick” by contingencies liberalism simply deems acceptable. Eg single fem household, “socially engineered”/anti male school system, female orchestrated serial infidelity (humiliating to males), pop culture at large etc etc –-all of which affected you like _Stockholm-syndrome_ affects its "victims”.)

2012-01-12T06:25:00.000-05:00

Pregnant women can, with total impunity, permanently damage their fetus with fetal alcohol syndrome. No legal sanction for that, not even societal shunning.

Pretty neat huh?

Democracy and capitalism must be stopped; then a _strong government_ created so as to prevent them from ever developing again.

Obviously trickery and other political tactics will have to be used to get there.

On and on...

2011-11-17T09:45:00.006-05:00

“Materialism” means cause and effect determinism –- all movement/change is domino effects/ billiard-ball chain reactions –- rather than miracles. Even if god started it all –with the Big Break–he conforms, negating a role for an activist god (along with freewill).

But that begs a question: why believe in and pray to/beg a “loving” creator who made all the ‘red in tooth a claw’ pecking order determinism of it all.

Natural selection is real. Get over it. Denying it/facts doesn’t make it any better.

Item2
“Secularism” HAS been a disaster.

But that is because…

YOU –-the disease called democracy-– DIDN’T LET US FINISH THE JOB.

“…We offered the world order!”

(Eugenics solves all problems.

One of the problems it solves is it gets rid of the people who mis define eugenics …and determinism …and materialism …and their own god.)

I did not mean religion is the disease OF democracy. I meant democracy itself is a social disease.

But maybe… if we got rid of the stupid/religiously delusional (be that religion jesus cult or feminism /infantile liberalism) a kind of democracy would be tolerateable between the intelligent (130+ IQ).

We study "materialism" -- the material universe and all its stuff in ever bank shot-ting chain reactions-- through a cause and effect dissection exercise -- and thus a prediction model creator-- called "science". (...We look both ways before we cross the road, running between the observed billiard balls.)

And yet anyway, yes, again, secularism has been a disaster.

But -- again-- that is because...

The caste-structure-held-together-by-wishful-demagoguery (ie religion of ONE STRIPE OR ANOTHER including "liberalism")-- didn't let us take 'secular reason' to its "logical" --ie its cause and effect processing-- conclusion.

That conclusion --after civil wars at the 'top' (where the demagogues there wouldn't be able to hide behind the masses they hold together through protectionist demagoguery)-- would have been more control of environmental contingency/events not less. Ie less 'freedom' (which is a religious conviction).

This control would have included controlling reproduction.

...Down with free range pu$$y.

Up with the Neo Cortex ...The road crosser.

===============
The dolts do not understand the full expanse of cause and effect and man's understanding of it. Ie they argue from ignorance as all religious people do. They would not have started the “free will* train” of thought if they did; nor the “a-bio genesis [life forming] is impossible" train. [*Don't start with the "quantum effects allow freewill and activist god". I understand it better than you; Hell I'm one of the inventors of the train of thought. It doesn't apply on our scale -- just like quantum effects trying to trump general Newtonian cause and effect mechanics don't.)

As far as god hitting me with a hammer to make me sharper… Thanks but no thanks[grabs wrist]– I’m sharp enough.

And as far as god wanting us to ‘get up off the couch’ and fight in the Natural Selection (“Darwinist”) arena as part of his plan… what kind of monster are you giving thanks to? (Not to mention: that is horrible politics/coalition-glue -- you will never win power that way.)

I will use my god given freewill (heh heh) –- ie my cause and effect analyzer /prediction creator/neo cortex -– to think a way around such a monster.

===============

women are not paid less than men.

Fine old chestnut but long since roasted.

Indeed women are conferred many educational, legal and grant privileges men are not; unconstitutionally. And since most men are not high status, that is important. And further since woman instinctively cheat on, use or discriminate against low status men, "equality" tween the genders (read: special privileges for females) in education, jobs, law and status doesn't just stop there. It never did.

I'm amazed that western culture did not and can not get its collective mind around how biology and gender works: Males are competing --where few win and most lose -- _over female sexual value_ [read fickleness/infidelity/discrimination].

"Jobs" educations etc are not some conspiracy to keep females undervalued. They are the competitive arena where-in males try to have enough value to balance out boopsy's natural value. Biology 101. There already were not enough status positions to go around; hence the revolutions men fought (and still fight) to be more equal with top males and thus with the females.

-----------
As I said any "advantage" or even parity leads to more female discriminatory callous infidelity. (And that leads to even more male competition and disparity between the have and have not males; not to mention it leads to more 'growth' and environmental degradation.)

The goal of females achieving status is not to buy mates like it is for males but rather to have more license to engage in antagonizing.

How did you and most of the West miss that fact of nature for the last few centuries? Seriously.

==============
1)
women dress to have multi male suitors all court them at once. This way they can tell the guy she DOES choose "hey up your game(give me more)" at her whim. It is a way of wielding leverage in the relationship. (The females don't need to be self aware in this. Therefore when they say "we dress for ourselves" they may be sincere. ...Though inaccurate.)

And it is not in the clothes since fashions change. It is in the social butterfly personality power of the females in question. _That_ is what will lead to multi mate choices and thus leverage over the guy she is with (regardless of the fashion of the day).

In agreement with some of the article though I say: Female 'hip swivel' IS the equivalent of male 'shoulder swagger'. Our society caps/limits male shoulder swagger display but not female hip swivel. That is why we have strippers and escorts but not vikings. That is why we have a matriarchy.

2)
The dudes who say man up(become better gamers) and enjoy it(the social butterfly dalliance scene all around us)...

(In the old days, the winners instead of saying "become better gamers and enjoy the show" would have said "make more money and buy yourself a June Cleaver [loyal doting 50s housewife].")

Problem: All men can't achieve rank in that system; say 70-90 % can't.

So that triggers a thing similar to the capitalist individualism, vs socialism thing... The loser/ socialist big tent will always win and prevent the winners from consolidating their victories (because protectionism works better politically than selfish-ism in a troop species --always has). Therefore it is incumbent on the top 10 percent (the winners) to prevent this all from happening so as to prevent the big tent of losers from throwing a wrench into the victory party.

That is something the winners of capitalism or gaming(or how ever one says winner in the past) can't seem to get. Thus they always lose the _big_ battle/the war vs the super coalition of losers.

...And thus society snowballs into the next fashion /competitive arena (but then with even fewer vikings and even more strippers --matriarchy).

==================
I'm against competition. And it is not because of simplistic liberal BS like "the hurt feelings of the losers". It is because in [real] competition... there will always be winners and LOSERS (usually more losers).

Then you have a problem… You can suppress the losers or let them counter attack and try to overthrow the game/rule set that benched them.

Democracy chose the latter solution [allowing and crowning rebellion] and look where it led… Feminism, ‘race replacement’ and etc, etc political problems (eg snowballing normalization of oddball-ness/runtiness which ultimately gets rid of the “normal”/ye olde victors).
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

The reason for intellects who can think it all through to big picture CONCLUSION being in favor of ending real competition (not vid game comp), is because in [real] competition there will always be winners and LOSERS (usually more losers): a giant caste of have and have not.

The very things everyone here complains about (eg femocracy taking over sports etc) are the very things the losers have done to get back at the perceived winners.

If one thinks it all through... man needs to have: fatal competition (ie dueling), or rigorously controlled caste structure --ie no freedom to rebel, or no competition. The other option of just saying "well the losers will learn a little about themselves" doesn't reckon with the FACT that the losers HAVE learned... They learned that holding themselves together in action pacts of losers rallied around utopian demagoguery allows them to have unchallenged power as they imposes species-changing polices on the winners to get back at them.

Again... losers need to be killed, or suppressed, or the winners and losers dance needs to be stopped in order to stop the pre conditions that --history shows-- inevitably led to liberalism/feminism and etc political problems.

------------
One way or the other the old system of maleness for humans is done (after this little fall of Rome a coming, which could cause a temporary neo primitive a la fight club). It is a question of who is gonna be in charge of what we become. We have seen what the feminists offer: rampant infidelity (normalized by new fancy words, despite the FACT that we would never tolerate it if the genders were reversed, calling it “emotional abuse” at the least and the “catalyst for all manner of damaging problems”) and or variants of femdom.

Again what are you gonna do with the losers/bench warmers?

=================

It feels good when some people abuse others.

Should they be allowed to do it?

Since your answer is probably no, we now know that your policy of 'license for all' is really an expression of your ignorance about how domino effects works.

Ie cheating is not a victim less crime... even if it feels good to the cheaters.

The problem with "do what thou whilst be it hurts no one" is _MOST_ things we do affect others somewhere else in some way. (It is just a question of how many "degrees of separation" can your mind grapple with.)

======================

===================

"[poisonous bile frpm a viper given more venom]" (Ie Greek for an article by an educated female.)

Nonsense (otherwise called journalism) from a little girl. (All females are ultimately.) Indicative of their controlling and malicious characters too.

And whatever they say they want from men this time will change next time. "Boxers vs briefs" back and forth over the generations. As said, indicative of their controlling and malicious characters.

Where are the articles where ADULT men critique and try to conform females they feel don't measure up?

Oh that's right: there are none. (Note men being [mindlessly] enamored [and hypnotized/controlled] by "hot chicks" on TV and in mags and movies is NOT the same thing as adult men getting together and making fun of chicks they don't think measure up; And then trying to force those deemed unacceptable chicks into roles through mockery. ...Not the same thing.)

The Greeks said it best: "educating a woman is simply giving more venom to a viper."

Unfortunately the absolute morons that make of democracy and the jews too need to learn that lesson the hard way for themselves, TWO THOUSAND YEARS LATE FOR CLASS.

============
Men and women are not equal, regardless of what books say. Further "equal" is a santa claus pipe dream. (Humans are prone to delusional wishful thinking and political cajoling.)

And further any notion that says these gendered studies are more besmirching to females than males is obvious delusion. (The differences are framed as though boopsy is advantaged, yet pro-female types complain anyway.)

...Poor boopsies even under siege when people frame things as though she is better than boys.

(Most know those popular gender books are hokum. Eg 'men are from mars, wimmins are from venus'; And most know that that dude JGray who wrote one is a notorious dolt and misandrist.)

And the notion that any morality or political consideration should be the deciding factor in any research here is counter the revolution's ideals of enlightenment and is Orwellian (as most people are ultimately). Also the attempt to impose this political academic and media blinder artifice exposes to the astute that the class(es) that seek to impose these blinders are not oppressed(as they claim) but rather the oppressors.

================

“[sarcasm:] yeah, one man who gets raped by a woman makes rape a gender-neutral crime, one woman who beats her husband makes spousal abuse a equal-female opportunity, oh wait… “

Rape IS a “gender neutral crime” (your term). And not for the strawman reason you gave. The reason is that one person (a man most often) rapes another person or persons. But all men certainly haven’t. To have solutions to rape or punishments for rape be directed at any other GROUP of citizens other than the actual one person accused would be unconstitutional and sexist bigotry.

...............................
"Spousal abuse is about asserting power and control over the spouse being abused. "

Correct.

But another manifestation of "asserting power and control" is what this society has done to men and boys across the board in education, employment, family court and social and family relationships generally --unasked for by a majority and not constitutionally sanctioned.

And regarding some comments:

-"Nothing justifies domestic violence"
Plenty of reasons to assert power and control over a spouse through personal or state coercion; and to pretend that coercion is not backed up by threat of violence" is santy claus cult.

And

-"I am against violence in all situations"
That is patently untrue; unachievable. At the very least you advocate violence to pull him off of her and keep him in jail. So it is just a question of who you believe the violence should be directed against and whom should perpetrate it.

Further if the perp was a female, we would hear about how the perp was simply acting out their woe at being hurt previously by the other party (victim) or had some issue from childhood.

Tarring all men--which is what the next DV policy initiative will do when it uses this story as part of its policy push-- with what this one ethnic damaged/abused lower class man did is an example of stereotyping/ painting everyone with a broad brush; when liberals do that, it is hypocrisy (since they are the ones who pushed the movement of not stereotyping). (Also like I said to have this perp's previous history of potential bad nurture syndrome not be relevant here is further hypocrisy on the part of liberalism since liberalism prides itself on its complexity environment arguments. To have that hypocrisy be gender motivated [which it ultimately is] is "sexism".)

Also not issuing a previous restraining order is NOT evidence of "women being hurt by a patriarchy that won't protect them". (Not to mention, if wimmin are equal why do they need this state protection?...) It is evidence that there was not enough evidence previously that a restraining order was needed. Given that the denying of a RestrainOrd happened in Florida--notorious for their draconian anti-DV initiatives--what I said is especially true: no evidence that he was a danger (yet); the previous court would have needed a time machine to rule otherwise.

==============
The same people who believe in demonizing all men for what these couple of rapists do are the same people who resist attempts to prevent prison convicts and etc from breeding.
And also the same people who look to "nurture syndrome"/environmental excuses when wimmins commit crimes are the same people who believe in demonizing and dis powering ALL men for what a COUPLE of rapists do (rapists who could be called 'victims of nurture syndrome').

==========
===========
Bullying is NOT a "gay or "gender discrimination" issue. To frame it that way, shows how corrupt our political machine is --how bad democracy is ultimately. Meaning every law that comes done the pike trying to deal with some human condition issue(like eg bullying) has some special rider in it for the special protected classes; special classes who might not even be the most debilitated or targeted classes.

Two...
Bullies can and do have bully parents. Ie it's hard to get the parents to stop it since they have caused it (and are probably a little proud of it).

Three...
The rash of suicide people might be prone to suicide. Ie bullying is just one facet of their lives'; other people who are bullied more severely don't commit suicide.

Three B...
The media's recent obsession with yoots who commit suicide after being gay bashed is typical media game playing / brain washing.

That makes me sound like I'm being anti gay and I'm not. I am simply saying that the media puts only SOME stories into the loop for the masses for its media reasons. ...Lots of people get bullied, are not gay and don't commit suicide. But that isn't deemed news to the News.

---
Four...
To the people saying the victims should toughen up... While that is glibly true, it is more easily said than done in modern western culture. The mod west prides itself on single fem parenting, alternative lifestyles/small households(no or few siblings), leisure/softness/ease of life(exercise etc is hard), protective medical environments (meaning we keep alive all manner of pups who normally would have died that can't just fight back) and zero tolerance for violence (which ironically hamstrings victims rights at scene of assault).

(And that last one there--"zero tolerance", which is inevitably selectively enforced-- is some real hypocritical Assery. "A world without violence where in people who would not normally be victims of violence get to be the victims of violence ...in a world without violence." ..sigh... politics...)

==============

The Soviet Union as suspected matriarchy.

2011-10-27T19:06:00.006-04:00

Welmar's site(an anti feminist "magazine") has a thread about Soviet Russia.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/10/24/life-in-the-nkvd/#comment-114985

Typically the anti statist obsessoids pipe up claiming that Soviet Russia is a matriarchy. They present "evidence" of "totalitarianism" and --to them-- that translates into so called "matriarchy." (In my matriarchy section --top right-- I talk about "this means therefore that" logic.)

I have posted numerous responses to the thread. All but one small one have been censured by that insufferable cowardly git welmar.

I post the censured responses here...

=====================

This first one is my response to a litany of copied statements from early communist revolutionaries and breeding data from modern Scandinavia and Iceland.

SM October 26, 2011 at 21:02
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Everyone knows that early communism’s goal is liberalism and feminism –-you are not enlightening anyone by quoting pages from books and documents [eye roll].

I know far more about it than you: welmar simply keeps censuring my posts(3 now) to quash my supposed antisemitism.

(Again, everyone knows that early communism’s goal is liberalism and feminism. But that begs a question: why does american capitalist democracy fight the wars that put communism in power over countries? And two: why did the west allow the “communist fellow travelers” to infiltrate and take over american media, “civil rights” pressure groups(race and gender demagogues), law and academia if capitalist democracy is a system that prevents matriarchy?)

And _everyone knows_ that non Russian countries after WW II –eg Iceland, Sweden etc–that are “socialists democracies” [ie capitalist democracy liberal-states] are way liberal.

That doesn’t AT ALL demonstrate that Russia (or china etc) _turned out_ to be more to the left (on race and gender issues) than the west did.

You have a western/american anti government cold-war obsession and that’s what it all comes down to. You are not looking at reality; you are looking at propaganda and pages of old books which do not denote reality accurately.

Showing –-in your copied documents-– that a country has state sponsored chivalry doesn’t mean that that country is more of a matriarchy than ours with our conventional/traditional(non govt based) chivalry for dames --especially since our conventional chivalry has long since been codified/institutionalized into law anyhow –right under the nose of the capitalist democracy[eyeroll]. It simply demonstrates that other countries have a “state”.

That is your real sticking point and all the matriarchy vs patriarchy stuff is just mis defining of terms motivated by your american anti statism.

(Note that Christianity demands largess towards the poor, weak and feminine too.)

And while you didn’t post this next stuff explicitly it is important to cut you off at the pass before you regurgitate out more pages from more decades old books…

Capitalism beats communism at creating more stuff(tm), true. Again _well known._ BUT THAT IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF MATRIARCHY VS PATRIARCHY.

Also putting men in gulags, and having spys vs spy shenanigans is not the definition of matriarchy and patriarchy. I don’t care if life was harder for men in the soviet system than western democracy. That is not the definition of matriarchy vs patriarchy. Life is harder for men in the Amish system too.

And a novelist (gorky) can “acknowledge” what ever he wants in the 30s. It tells us nothing at all.

——------------

And to "Anonymous Reader"…

1) – Sticking point. East Germany was an occupied zone of hated enemies. That must be kept in mind when pointing to it as example of Russian communism (no less Chinese et al communism).

2) None of that spy vs spy /stark winterscape-living scene is germane to matriarchy/ patriarchy definitions.

You are obsessed with cold war western propaganda that has blinded you. It is some kind of clinging to masculinity through being good western patriots (and the anti state zealotry).

Again…
Nobody denies that the red revolution –starting in 1850– was liberal demagoguery (matriarchy sophistry included).

BUT after the MILITARY COUP to achieve it in Russia and the patriotism or death of the WWII period, the soviets had done away with those crackpots.

Somehow you missed that trend.

—————

Nobody is denying matriarchy. I am saying that you mis-defined it.

I define it again:

The definition of matriarchy is not whether or not a country offers a tax break–or has something called “growth”.

Or whether there are spies in occupied zones ratting each other out (if that is even true), with bleak winterscape backdrops.

Nor is it whether or not men are burdened and beaten. Males –for biological reasons– will always have more burden than females until if and when gender is eliminated.

_The definition is in part ‘are the females enhareming males’; polyandry or polygyny? Who’s racking up lovers? And how easy it for the respective genders to achieve that racking._

——–
And finally, again, if liberal communism is so odorus to you, stop fighting wars to put america into power everywhere. America –by your ilks own testimony–was infiltrated and subverted by “communists” in the early and mid 20th century through their control of media,”civil rights” activism, academia and law. That cabal there defined the american value set (affirmative action, homo politics, feminism, immigration, race politics, etc) not some half baked notions about apple pie, frontiersmen-ship and individualism from the sticks.

====================
SM October 25, 2011 at 20:09

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

PeterTheGreat, et al, you understand that the west has long since been taken over by these, ahem, infiltrating "communists" right? That most western social patterns were and are created by the western media and civil rights groups which are the, ahem, "communists"?

If capitalism and or democracy is good at preventing the "communist way" than how come it let it take over without a fight in the west?

How come capitalism fought and still fights to put western style media, civil rights groups and "values"(which are media and pressure group created) in to power over other countries?

When is capitalist democracy going to fight the, wink wink nudge nudge, "communists" who have long since migrated into and infiltrated most american institutions such as media, law, academia, politics and-- hypocritically-- the Hamptons and Californian hills and coastlines?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

-----------------------------

SM October 25, 2011 at 15:14


PeterTheGreat October 25, 2011 at 10:03

    SM @
    “From the review by WFPrice:

    “there was no matriarchy in the Soviet Union. Feminism played no part in Soviet power politics, and it appears that nobody took it seriously in any event. “”

       [PeterTGreat:] As I stated, feminism was the defacto family state, even if the Soviet State itself was primarily male, due to the loss of so many men to liquidation and gulag imprisonment.

       feminism was part of the Bolshevik program, but rescinded in the Soviet Union BUT NOT OUTSIDE OF IT. It remained a part of the Communist/Bolshevik program to undermine other States – which it has done in much of the West.

''''''''''''''''''''''

I understand very well that the migrant jew liberals--what you call "communists", the so called "fellow travelers" and "red diapers"-- are feminist activists (along with other forms of revolutionary activism). (I also understand that liberal agitation is, in part, a tactic by them--the migrant liberals-- to destabilize the host cultures cohesiveness. [The other part is it might be unwitting that it is their tactic to destabilize --jews might just be more liberal by their natures. ...Bio natures _selected_ by a history of migration and expulsion.])

I understand that they first took over media and law in Manhattan and then NY state in the early 20th century and then spread.

I understand that they are the backbone of most liberal revolutionary movements, including feminism, "Civil liberty unions", academic professoria and both lawyers of defense (with extremist cockeyed sophist arguments) and now, hypocritically, prosecution. Hypocrisy because the old civil liberty defense arguments they use to make demonstrated that relativist prejudice is inherently rife in state run and social institutions. ...But now as men are railroaded its cricket silence. (Also silence by the "Civil liberty unions" and academic professoria as men are demonized by society at large.)

I understand that the "labor protectionist" wing of the fellow travelers is hypocrisy: Once in power over a host culture's nodes of influence the 'communists' (ie jew liberal activist types) advocate and impose things which are in visceral opposition to host culture laborites (though laborites are too stupid --and thus easily distracted-- inherently to get that).

But that does not demonstrate that the communist states (most of which are actually non-white nationalist movements rallied around expelling Euro colonizers: eg cuba, vietnam even china to certain degree) are actually more matriarchal than western democracy turned out to be.

1) If jew liberal philosophy --so called communism-- is so odorous to you STOP FIGHTING THE WARS TO STRENGTHEN IT. Every time america fights another country it is on behalf of those that have defined america for a century. The jewish media and pressure groups ("civil rights" umbrella) have been that defining force for a good 50 to 75 years; more in certain urban areas (more important than rural areas).

The definition of matriarchy is not whether or not a country offers a tax break--or has something called "growth".

Nor is it whether or not men are burdened. Males --for biological reasons-- will always have more burden than females until if and when gender is eliminated.

The definition is in part 'are the females enhareming males'; polyandry or polygyny? Who's racking up lovers? And how easy it for the respective genders to achieve that racking.

///////////////////////////////
================
To welmar:

GROW A PAIR.

girls, relationships and tests

2011-04-24T04:11:00.003-04:00

loveless relationships...
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 18, 2011 - 1:37am.

"I have friends who grew up in loveless marriages that have battled with relationship problems."

Loveless marriage and relationship problems would be symptom of the new society. Meaning men and females aren't displaying "properly" because of new social "condition-ings" and that is destroying attraction, desire love. (Thus the relationships are "loveless".)

Jeez. You don't pay attention well. Also you are willfully blind most likely motivated by a lifetime of political condition-ings which profit you. (You respond to someone who says "divorce was caused by feminism" with... "No, divorce was caused by loveless-ness", while ignoring that the modern "loveless" condition --lacking in attraction, desire and compatibility-- was caused by feminism. Ie I accuse you of childish tautology.)

And lastly, if feminism hasn't been the one major tremendous force creating the new social "condition-ings", then what would have done it? And WHY would any honest observer choose to ignore the tremendous force of feminism as that main driving force for change in our social sexual displays?

==========
innate human tendencies
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 18, 2011 - 1:56am.

"It's "pretty obvious" there is a market, but extrapolating innate human tendencies from the existence of some websites is ridiculous."

Pretty neat coincidence that our human porn and erotic markets mimic to a tee the most numerously occurring mammal "ethological" (social sexual) mating rituals, huh? And further, pretty neat the way our male and female human biochemistries and lower brain structures mimic to a tee the other mammals' too?

Wow... That patriarchal social engineering is all powerful: it even "victimizes" the other mammals...

=========
like teats on a bull...
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 18, 2011 - 2:16am.

The crossing of displays and desires (including femdom) was touched on by the article. (Go read that section again about the latent potentials in both genders --like nipples on male mammal.)

It isn't that complicated. And it especially should be understandable at a psychology venue, since psychology specifically deals with the numerous varied ways that "environmental constructs" (nurture syndromes, social condition-ings, "epi-genetic stresses") effect the individual --his chemicals, glands, nerves etc --as he/she matures.

Or if one chooses to remain _conveniently_ ignorant [ie politically motivated] and simply recite the glib cant of "genes", these other crossed-role types can be said to be simply genetic "outliers" on the successful-breeding bell-curve-chart. (Ie freaks.) _They are variants that can only survive now because of the NEW and recent selection pressure niches unique to modern human civilization (just like runty dogs are outlier wolves and can only survive now because of man's unique new selection environments)._

Not rocket science people.

================
[equal] partner...
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 18, 2011 - 3:52am.

You are not in self aware tune with what you actually want in a man. You keep your definitions purposefully vague in your own head. (See my final paragraphs below.)

Your ill defined "I just want someone with male genitalia"...

Those male genitalia would thrust into you (with none of that pubescent fumbling around), and he would hold your hips good an tight doggy style, put all his weight on you missionary and grunt viscerally when he cums, with lotsa confident eye contact. (Lets not even get into that he should make plenty of forcefully expelled cum, and pre cum and be 6-1/2 to 7-1/2 in size --things which are testosterone generated and therefore can vary based on environmental conditions.)

Also when sex is not occurring, the male you would be attracted to and even tolerate --especially if you are high sex and /or young and attractive (ie girl with "options")-- would have an assortment of "competencies" and strengths you lack (he'll also be taller than you). [The fact that females have gender-specific strengths/qualities that males need or desire is not relevant.]

You can deny that all you want --or misdefine it by entering the vague "partner" --but I guarantee it.

_The thing that you are --and all the nay sayers--and the society at large is-- not getting --the thing the title of the article tried to convey-- is that modern socialization is [not to mention modern selection pressures such as those created by 'criminal justice' are] rendering the male incompetent, low and unattractive to females at a base level._

That is especially true during ovulation. During that time, females look for higher male "strength" and they "test" / sass cruelly to see if bo or hubby has it. If bo or hubby has been raised by modern feminist conditions --notably single female parent or modern schooling --chances are he could fail the tests, causing all manner of "loveless-ness" to grow in the relationship.

You're the only one saying "[whips and crazy role-playing]" and defining things as cat stomper vs nice, equal guy. Ie strawman.

You have simply misdefined things in your head. That misdefining protects you. (Like it would for a computer on old star trek from being tricked into blowing itself up through exposed contradictions.) This mis defining and strawman is typical of most satisfied-- ie attractive, comfortable-- young modern urban westerners. (see SWPL)

=========
intromission's point of entry
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 18, 2011 - 11:00pm.

"[There is no contradiction. A woman might want to be ravished in the bedroom and respected in the boardroom.]"

Most are missing the point. (Here and at the anti-viagra thread.)

Ie feminism has raised men to not be able to ravish properly. That is the contradiction. It has nothing to do with what Boopsy SAYS she wants or thinks is contradictory.

(Your female-human brain is all self entitlement; that is why you don't get what I'm saying... You say to yourself "I want a man to ravish me here but let me lead there; so see, silly there is no contradiction". It is not about YOU[eyeroll] it is about society at large.)

It is not --as feminists would screech-- that men don't like strong women. It is that females don't like the incompetent males feminism's success has created over the generations.

The other article tried to grapple with it a bit: Male intromission reflex (male mammal humping instinct) and female lordosis (butt in air/'heat').

Our society's rearing process has damaged male "intromission" chain reactions. That damage is caused by feminism. (It has nothing to do with what Boopsy SAYS she wants or thinks is contradictory.)

(Now some self satisfied SWPL will challenge telling us how "he and his wife have had 10 glorious years of femdom pee sex together and therefore society is not damaging anything", totally oblivious to the concept of anecdote.

And then some damaged person in the form of a wimmins' studies grad [the true high mark of intellectual academic achievement, ehem] will screed off some litany of rape propaganda and demagoguery.)

==============
Defiying description
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 23, 2011 - 5:56pm.

The men that are to go extinct fight back and that fighting back is not some buzz word "misogyny". It is controlling of an important resource(female behavior). Controlling fems is like say building a garden: a very thing that makes us human. Allowing the caprice of female humans to breed swaths of men into extinction would be the primitive thing to do.

Honest interpretation of female character is not some buzz word illness: "Misogyny."

And ultimately your schpeel is rooted in a utopian belief that things will "work out" to some "equal" place --rather than hyena-dom or borg hive-- after Boopsy is allowed to get rid of strains of mankind. (Ie the men she doesn't like -- today.)

Not to mention getting rid of swaths of mankind would be "eugenics." I thought liberalism was going to protect low men. Now it is going to allow females to abuse them into extinction motivated by envy.

--------------
Not to mention, most of your post, if not all, is really just... um blech (it defies description). It's just political buzz words (looking for allies)...

"Might makes right" thing.... Please. As though female "emancipation" (ie their right to engage in _rampant non empathic dalliance_ from 12 years old to 40 [along with eugenic purges per your writing]) is not also dependent on a huge might makes right _UNCONSTITUTIONAL_ violence machine that females support every inch of the way.

And what is feminism (and the female instigated and controlled "battle of the sexes" before that) if not females complaining about and controlling any male "desire/choice/path" that is uncomfortable or less than ideal for females?

(On to your next paragraph. I could go through each one like this, cause like I said, what you wrote is... ugh... It is all self entitlement parroting the schtick of the zeitgeist.)

"Looking down on females." Females look down on themselves. Men actual desire and appreciate female um... well turned ankle issues. The looking down thing (your hand eye and other short comings) is your own female self-esteem issue. Meaning a self esteem category specific to femininity itself, given that you all are emasculated creatures by nature. While that stunted reality is not pretty (for nature is NOT), it is rather unavoidable without massive oppressive unasked for change of the human species.

If you mean, that the intelligent strong willed men understand and don't shy from the _fact_ that females are lesser in male aptitudes, well yes they don't, since you have less of important aptitudes than men. Nature is not pretty.

Forcing females "into a role", simply translates to controlling female hammer-swinging behavior (eg dalliance and abusive child rearing --pathology inducing actually [shame on the psycho-babble community for not crying that from its tower!]-- and neo cortex destroying inanity and insanity) before it hurts other people.

Control is exactly what females (and the weak males that define the upper ranks of civilization) want to do to men when... any male "desire/choice/path" is uncomfortable or less than ideal for females (and the weak males that define the upper ranks of civi).

[Regarding the "weak males in charge of civi" thing... You all should go read my site: I aint screwing around here-- I am very special and I am in earnest about solving this calamity that has _befalling_ mankind.]

This controlling of females into "role" obviously wasn't done adequately in the 20th century. _So much for the 'pervasive and oppressive patriarchy' _lie_._

"hating females in one's field." Hate is a strong word; You have evidence for this "hate" right? Competitors don't want the other to win, true; such is competition itself. Females don't understand this because they are used to being given food and sex--ie the core goals of competition-- without actually fighting to the death over said. (Such is nature for men, for nature is not pretty for them too.) [If that was supposed to be some dig against me... know this: I would never work in field that would allow a female to PRETEND she is my equal. Duh... I actually intend on having "hot sex". ;-) ]

Ie Nobody hates you. But there might be some eventual [I hope] actual competition against you all once your self entitled screed starts to take more of a toll on the amount of positions in society that men NEED (unlike females).

Men fight to the death to win the kind of status females are being given on a platter. (Men --and males across nature-- must have status --where some win and most lose-- or they will not breed, unlike females who are playing at career as part of their "make it more difficulty for males to get me" test).

You actually have yet to be competed with fairly; your "strides" in the 20th cent are conference, that males would never allow each other. While you pretend you are under siege from a dark force called patriarchy, that is all a part of the big lie. That big lie is indeed part of the sexual dance of this species: females complain and sound alarms[even cry wolf] from a high-leverage sexual place and men protect and provide).

[You all should go read my site: I aint screwing around here-- I am very special and I am in earnest about solving this calamity that has _befalling_ mankind.]

Next dissection of female open callosum...

"believing that how "women should act" according to whatever world-outlook one has (religious, evolutionary, whatever...) should be forced on women regardless what they ACTUALLY want to or do act like."

Strawman. Hint don't talk to christians/protestants or americans in general. I'm deadly serious: a failed meme and race of moronic delusion-oids.

I have nothing to say to your strawman other than the general stuff I have said here.

I don't believe religion or evolution tells me how females should act. I know --from looking at nature--that the utopian cults you rely on for your "strides" --and to be taken seriously with nothing more than a self entitled litany of buzz words (while you attempt to breed portions of mankind into extinction)-- are santa claus cult and will never, ever, never work out like you suppose or pretend they will. AND THEREFORE there is no reason for me /men to abdicate. Ie there is no moral presumption that would cause me to think I'm bad for taking the swinging hammer out of boopsy's hand. And even if there was some moral presumption, Boopsy's desire to take swinging tools[ehem] away from me, would void the 'moral presumption contract' anyway.

Females are just as desirous of controlling and "role-forcing" men as men are of females. The lack of vocabulary --ie lack of human brain wiring-- for dealing with this calamity['feminism'] (for it is a selection pressure that apparently has never happened before) simply allows Boopsy's self entitled hypocrisy to hide behind male libido and the complexities that have developed in modern "civilized" male human competition (ie utopianism beliefs[wishful thinking motivated by fear] and modern democratic politics [staving off vulnerabilities by buying allies]).

"basically, MISOGYNY is HATEFUL DEHUMANIZATON OF HALF OF HUMANITY to JUSTIFY oppressing or even enslaving them trough DISCRIMINATION and VIOLENCE - and the only ones who wish this are basically socipaths and mediocre-to-loser men who realize they don't have a chance with women if women actually have no fear of them and are free to work and survive without them."

You have no evidence for that (other than "hetero-normative" "rape culture" demagoguery which might as well be from Mars).

Meanwhile our society is a giant caste structure held together with hateful dehumanization of men (wimmins studies material, pressure group rhetoric, TV and advertising) motivated by irrational [and dualistic ally desired] fear to justify oppressing and enslaving men (men work and provide more for this society, enduring more of the burdens of that and getting less profit from it (including being 'bred into extinction' while still doing the work or being mocked for shirking) despite the debunked propaganda about '77 cent on the dollar') through discrimination (AA, draft registration, court law [despite the BS that it is "gender blind"], title IX, and the profound unspoken though very real emotional /psychological plane males exist on) and violence (police and other dudes who are already cowed and brainwashed and bombs for Arabs et al) --and the only ones who wish this are basically sociopaths (lesbians and ugly ducklings) and those with self esteem issues specific to femininity (ie inherently emasculated submissive reactionaries), the ignorant dames (ie most girls who can't think things through to conclusion as they play their instinct-motivated games), and the RUNT males who thrive and profit in civilization who realize that if they don't use females/feminism as a shield and grenade to get rid of better males that they --these runts [the males you are forced to endure wherever it is over privileged upwardly mobile chicks hang]--will be the first to become extinct in a world where NORMAL healthy un-oppressed masculinity prevails (you know the very stuff you fantasize about) and the girls who fear that without special unconstitutional discriminations benefiting them and without exploiting privileges --rooted in the underlying previous chivalry of the very patriarchy that is irrationally feared -- that they would not be able to work and survive.

;-)

----
"When "might makes right" go out the window, the genes of males who only can get girls in an environment of violence and fear, eventually go extinct - and good riddance :D"

An "environment of violence and fear"?!

Oh you mean the boys you like the best :D

wimmins history month and take your daughter stuff

2011-03-08T05:36:00.001-05:00

It is wimmins history month in March. They’ll be lotsa of stuff like that now (and again in September/October I noted too –that’s their secret newsletter “action item” time).

----
Regarding unconstitutional female only career drives…

If there was any real evidence that a company or institution paid a female less, the thousand and one private and govt equal opportunity commissions and lawyers would be all over it.

Society ignores the fact that males show far more downward and negative indicators in all categories liberals choose to measure (normally meant to show the class so labeled as downward is oppressed by complicated institutional “power of suggestion”): underachievement, health, life span, sex partners, upward mobility, suicide, incarceration, workplace health etc, etc. Meanwhile we trump up female petty downward indicators (eg not enough apply to NASA) and present them as evidence that patriarchy is real and through its behavior and display damaging females in some way.

How many girls in your high school and college did you see that were under siege from a patriarchy? And if there were any, what schools in what towns `cause I’m moving there. …Ie we all went to school– we all know the deal: females are liars and sub intellectual, often callous, who are running amok in a grande dalliance environment. (We’ve even invented new fancy words for this enviro to protect our deification of females _and ourselves given our instinctual libidinous desire to aspire towards them_: “serial monogamy”.) But we are told by authority that fem privilege is not the case –that the females are actually oppressed and hurt. And tunnel-vision lens-ed, just-so data is published to “prove” it. …And the weak-minded cave in first and that starts a domino effect synergy.

———
Willfully blind bigotry, biology, gender equality hypocrisy…

People say (especially those simpletons with daughters) “I am very pleased with what the feminists have achieved thus far. It means that if I have any daughters – that they have a chance in society.”

That’s like saying “I’m in the Klu Klux Klan and I very pleased with what the racists have achieved thus far. It means that if I have white children they have a chance.”

Problem is liberal Enlightenment Age O Reason society was not supposed to be that. (It is all “unintended consequence” snowballing along*). So if liberal society becomes an apparatus to achieve unconstitutional anti male bigotry and female pedestal-izing deification, something is very, very wrong.

(*It is INSTINCT to fight over female sexual value; it is HUMAN instinct to fight over it by displaying protector ability in a quid pro quo. And now modern civi keeps alive too many low IQ males who are simply machines of libido instinct; thus they are stuck in a groove… A very politically efficient groove.

Ie hypocrisy regarding this “gender equality experiment” was inevitable given the underlying biological truth of the human species.)

The fact you don’t perceive your belief as bigotry(and can’t/don’t grapple with the underlying biological motivations for it) says reams about YOU.

————
It is not a question of “right” to make “equal pay for equal work”. There is no right to work (or education, or any other pretense or political conceit humans hold dear)! Work is something men do to compete over female “hypergamy” tendencies ( = discriminatory up based infidelity ['up' is case specific/caprice]).

…”Female deer have a ‘right’ to grow antlers” : “female humans have a ‘right’ to ride a horse into battle [swords a cleaving]“. It doesn’t make any sense. [Note male deer are fighting each in headbutt suomo competition _over_ female wandering tendencies. Antlers have been selected in only males as the unwitting tool of success. It was not a conspiracy to keep females out of anything. Same with sapien competition.]

Few males win and _most lose_ –EVEN WITHOUT Feminism’s amplification of that Problem. (Note ‘problem’ is a relative construct.)

Taking status positions away from males simply pushes more males into the loser pit.

——-
Also note:

http://seanmaccloud.blogspot.com/2009/09/affirmative-action-and-female.html

techno roll

2011-03-08T05:33:00.003-05:00

I do like my assumption that repro techno allows “misogyny” to reproduce in ways it hasn’t yet.

Techno got us in, and techno will have to get us out.

It is not a certainty that we will win though. …What type of creature man will be by the time “men’s” victory is achieved etc? I have not seen male dominant hives (how ever one might define “male dominance”).

(Someone once said to me about that (a dame from soc men, so it is probably one of these dames here with new nym) “is that light up ahead the end of the tunnel or the train?…)

But note we also have never seen other chimps leave orbit either. …Behold the beast man… How like a God.

So…

We must balance –like a dancing bear– on a runaway snowball.

We can’t all just run away and “join the Amish” as our way of pulling out the plug on civi/femi. …The quilt is not big enough.

…And most crucially those that don’t run away will simply claim “eminent domain” trump card [over the Amish and other Luddites] at _their leisure_.

I’m thinking that as repro techno starts to negate female sex value it creates opportunity for “misogyny” to pass on like never before in history. Not to mention generations of children raised without female “nurturing” in their heads.

The males who can’t allow that “misogyny” –say those that make daughters etc (ehem)– have to be marginalized by more of the same techno HOPEFULLY IF/WHEN.

And that is the real battle right there actually.

MISC

2011-03-08T05:25:00.004-05:00

Some of my thoughts on “human-father being princess enablers”…

This “father protecting his daughters” instinct IS a harem lord instinct. A harem lord instinct, after it has been reworked by the “normative consensus” of what the others males will allow.

Ie history has shaped the human male into a creature who doesn’t actually have sex with his harem(family) as he fends other males away from this harem. (I wager human fathers get the same kind of high a victorious gorilla or deer does after a successful battle.)

Think what we’ve done to the wolves: border collie herding sheep. It stalks and chases prey(sheep) in partnership with its alpha (the human) but he doesn’t actually bite them or take them down.

Father-protect is also a demonstration to the female who he is having sex with (his wife) that he protects well. …Like a male bower bird bringing a blue lighter to female: blue lighter serves no acute material purpose other than triggering the female into ‘thinking’ he is a good forager.

========

    Cohen will end up married with children and screwed in divorce court.

    l will figuratively be there, cheering her, when he be screwed.

    Cohen is sacrificial lamb. He’s a very useful example. No mra stuff could even come close to how cohen promotes the mra agenda.

Maybe.

It is also likely though that he'd eat the burden of his own oppression (eg in divorce court etc) in order to get you oppressed (by feminism) too.

His benchwarmer ressentiment is strong in him and his tribe.

The problem the "tribe" has with us is deep, deep seated. They are prepared to sacrifice their balls to get your dick removed. It is instinctual.

Ie I believe he is not an ignorant white knight goy protecting woman (like many white males are). I believe he is a mangina in a profound quest to get rid of masculinity because it scares him (when others have it).

sugar and spice (what dames be)...

2011-02-28T06:49:00.000-05:00

==================
What females are...

People ask how to stop feminism? What is feminism?

"You’ll have to give me examples of what is truly feminism. ...And how would one fully reject feminism?"

That is a big big question. It needs to be answered in full for all time and always; it is the thing(tm). The unspoken crux of the issue.

I try to _start_ an answer to it below...

Feminism is a battle of "essence" not any one plank. Before it was called feminism, it was called "the battle of the sexes." Ie all that frustration-inducing game playing (compelled by an assortment of biological troots).

In order for females to not be feminists any more...

They would have to stop being what females and human females are on instinct.

-They would have to in childhood stop telling secrets, being cliquish, being manipulative, being taunters and teasers, being tattlers.

-In teen years they would have to stop being sexual gate keepers who are in little secretive cliques.

-In adult hood --along with teen hood-- they would have to stop being dualistic creatures who are repulsed by males who love them and repulsed by males who become civilized (soft/nice /infantile males). (Male humans become soft/infantile as a side effect of their battles verse each other over female sex value. [see alpha beta gamma again; yep, sorry.])

-They would also have to be smarter with a closed callosum. And be less gland based. (It is said that males think with their 'little heads'. Yes Sometimes true. But at least men have a choice between the two. Female humans on the other hand are only glands/moods. They make words [_undefined_ sounds actually that mimic men's words] so as to trick men into giving them food and etc.)

-Less reactionary against males. That starts in childhood when the females are a type of bench warmer male. They have classic bench-warmer-male syndromes (ie reactionaries who throw wrenches in the works to "get even"). Once the females get leverage --which their sex value naturally affords them-- they believe anything they do to get back at males is deserved simply because males "hurt" them in childhood by being better at everything. (It is called penis envy motivates la femme mystique.)

-The species would have to stop having wallflower chicks [ugly/ fat/ masculine girls]. They have classic typical female bench warmer syndrome [penis envy] _mixed with_ wallflower ax to grind anger. They are also the most masculine fems and therefore sense that freeing themselves from the harem of emasculated hermaphrodites [see "fundamentals": cuttle fish] and making a run for it is within reach. They are well motivated ax to grind female rousers using whatever political plank will work at the moment. The planks that work are demonization of males to rile up closer human male fear that the big bad "alpha" is coming to steal the wife or daughter. The human males are very susceptible to that propaganda alarm since it fits nicely into their own raison d tre: marginalize the other male by using allies.

The only way to stop males from imposing policies that deal with the above is to keep men too dumb to contemplate it [thank you chrisendumb] or make men machines who don't feel anymore (ie that don't care that females are "bad" people who induce frustration and competition anymore). The only way to stop females from being "bad" is to make females machines.

Feminism [nee "battle of the sexes"] is a "battle of essence." Understanding that essence entails outside-looking-in objective [asexual /amoral] lens and a lens rooted in naturalism.

Americans, christians and liberals are "flat earth believers" [or 'flat earthers'] when it comes to biology/ontology. As too was marx et al with his "man comes from a golden age of non warring matriarchies."

Some males are more tuned into the essence of the battle than others.

We call the en tuned "Misogynists".

Meanwhile other males have daughters...

(*Modern matriarchy-belief wings have spun golden age into an equally absurd "we come from a period of wimmin warriors ruling." "wolf women of the past." [That harkens back to a literary device: amazons. Conjured by notorious "monstrous liars" --as Ovid [or Virgil*] called them --the Greek poets.]

[*Damn! Me brains is almost gone now.]

Matriarchy-of-past is now morphing into wing[s] who believe that any time males fight over females it is a matriarchy. I like that one the best. It is hardest to deconstruct being the most rooted in a spin of reality but its solutions when they come will be the grandest.)

==============

Why are females so angry?...

(Get away from the human freewill, self awareness thing; see the universe as an assortment of amoral chain reactions; in biology these chains are called 'modules'. Ie see our human ways and means as unwitting compulsions that work for reasons over our heads. [See my "fundamentals"])

1 females have instincts to antagonize. Take female deer auto-matonically twitching tail --white rumped too(to catch light)-- or female lion wanderings.

2 the hum females have a grass is always greener crack the whip instinct.

3 females are emasculated males by nature. Female hums either sense this or are now --for some dames-- cognitively aware of that. They are understandably angry /reactionary.

4 after eons of being emasculated creatures as the way they breed, females have modules which compel them towards submission. Ie they like to be `taken by bodice ripping pirates. Now given that civi has [through ABG principle] snowballed man into a place where pirates are extinct or illegal, the final indignity has been perpetrated against females...

They can't even find a rake to "knock dem booties" once per month when she is prepared to expose herself as a craven submissive to some creature she despises/adores. (she despises him because he emasculated her.)

5 is the wallflower axe to grind rabble rouser thing. A chick not chosen is a frustrated, angry chick.

_____________________________
===============================
I posted the above at "The Spearhead" (run by welmar) in response to a question. It did not make it past moderation. Welmar at 'the spearhead' by not letting the top post above through at his site has demonstrated why men can't stop feminism.

Females have no problem demonizing males(with wide spin or out right lies) in order to conjure propaganda necessary to lube policy through the political/societal works. Meanwhile men can't even organize listed troots about female character without other males --for their reasons-- being off-put by them.

Jebus cult's problem with Nietzsche

2011-02-24T20:14:00.003-05:00

Nietzsche did not cause anyone to become nihilist. And he didn't cause Christianity to be a female cult.

You did that. Your cult of slaves and dunces.

Freud and Nietzsche having single female parent issues was not caused by them. And Nietzsche wasn't a "matriarch"; And nihilism is not matriarchy anyway. Egads!

You don't even know what nihilism means. It means hopelessness, and the consequent MGTOW bailout. Nothing more. Nihilism is not a cause of the hopelessness, it is the effect of hopelessness. The cause (of our predicament and the consequent nihilist bailout) is your ascendant slave cult --your "slave morality" thwarting "hero morality." (There's a little Nietzsche for ya.)

Now if you said... "People are stupid but we need to hold them together in big groups so we can collectively fight a big group enemy (feminism), therefor the glue to use is religion since it appeals to the majority of the stupid"... I would be with you.

But once you start with the kaleidoscope fun-house mirror philosophies (like "Nietzsche caused the collapse of fatherhood in the west"), it is turn off time.

Sacrificing the moralistic confused ill thinking horde to liberalism is one way of buying liberal support for a revolution towards a new zeitgeist.

That christian gobbly-gook is an anchor and it is what got us into this mess. ...A little more anti Darwinism anyone? (Talk about too stupid to learn the first time the rake is walked on and its handle smacks the face.)

Eugenics in childhood stops feminism by rooting out the core problem that snowballs into feminism in the first place: the Alpha beta gamma principle (coup snowball to runtdom) and mass stupidity.

Eugenics stops every other problem too. It is the only thing that hasn't been tried, yet it is the only solution.

(The only thing not tried but the only solution. That's truly Satan's trickery. ...The only actual solution is the one you refuse the hardest.

But then all of america itself is Satan's trickery. You all praise the cause of your misery (eg democratic capitalism) and demand more of it as balm.

...The upside down world... where the right is the left and the left is the right. A Bizarro World...

Through the looking glass we go... to america.

...Satan laughing spreads his wings.)

Now it is going to be fun watching how many thumbs-down I get...

2011-02-24T19:28:00.003-05:00

Men fall for feminist rape politics.

These males use feminist rape culture verbiage and concepts. Ultimately they are petitioning feminist authority using feminist claptrap _rather than fomenting the revolution necessary to oust feminist authority._

"Once you lower yourself to debate them, you have already lost."

When besmirched by feminists who say "men are rapists", rather than tripping over yourself to prove your are a wimp who could never possibly get it up (and therefore are no threat), the solution is simple: say "yes sex is 'rape' and therefore your destiny as a _female_ --after revolution -- is to be quivery and afraid of the spectre that is the lingam. Swoon."

Men defining themselves as creatures that "protect the weak" is why feminism (and other social ills) happened in the first place. And this isn't rocket science.

The weak males will stop at nothing --including creating feminism-- to get rid of every male who isn't a runt. And then that world created --without adult male chemistry-- is the only environment in which feminism flourishes.

---------
All sex IS rape. Western males simply don't understand females [or nature] yet.

Sex doesn’t even have to be “dark” and pathological to be seen as rape by a female. Sex IS simply rape. …The penetration of it all; the fear of the bigger creature (who she knows damn well is better than her at everything). The whole thing seems like rape if you’re female.

Men think “rape” means alleyway nut-job [_raised badly by his crazy mother_] –-_who steals men's girlfriends._ But to a female, any confident masculine morning wood itself is a belittling and fear-inducing/alluring thing. And she is angry about that in a dualistic sometimes yes, sometimes no way.

If she also has axe to grind issues (like wall flower-ism or jewish trouble maker desire) she can easily ham up that anger into “rape! rape! everywhere” hysteria, so as to get the infantile males to “protect” her from normal men (who have confident thrusting morning wood, which stunts and “bruises” females in numerous ways).

Females will not stop until no male grows a single whisker.

Dimorphic sex IS dominance. One would be hard pressed to find a female that doesn't know that (though she might not be able to express it in words or if she can, might be cagey enough to not divulge it).

That _many males_ don't know that is _bad_. Their numbers in total are why western men are being socio-politically sublimated by a more astute tuned-in class (ie feminists).

...This is the "alpha beta gamma" snowball breeding man toward infantile lower IQ males who the females are more savvy then --as I have explained a gazillion times.

By trying to suppress the dimorphic life force in themselves, men have made themselves vulnerable to the female take over that is feminism.

---------
The runt males have taken over and they are trying to redefine "normal" masculinity over to their infantile natures. (Some of the weak males pretend they aint feminists but they are inside.) Their runt ascendancy is synonymous with feminism's ascendancy. If these infantile idiotic runt --abnormal-- males are not eliminated feminism WILL succeed in enslaving and then someday getting rid of men.

Pull out the plugs on the incubator babies now!

---------

Don’t bring back what billions of year of evolution have erased.

1000 to 200 years ago is not billions. And evolution is not a directed thing that leads to "better" or "more civilized". All that is a made up definition in your head.

========================
Men are enslaved now (and it could get a lot worse) because we keep alive too many failed males in childhood.

Children need to be tested and ranked by IQ and talent. Lower male ressentiment-motivated coup (ie the ABGamma principle) needs to be prevented from upsetting that ranking. (If you don't like the idea of that, then keep all the children separated.)

To EvilWhiteMaleEmpire

2011-02-02T12:36:00.000-05:00

1) I only have a yahoo e ma-il.

It has already been compromised by the tribe of infantile bench-warmers --steeped in ressentiment-- america fights to keep alive and in power.

Road Rnr won't let you send an email to yahoo?

2) Membership to comment here...

Can't you just sign in using google and then comment in the comment box?

The sign-in is at right column, bottom by the "follow" section. It says "Already a member? _Sign in_"

If not, let me know.

(Please, relegate all extremism to me.)

You and MRA need to get sites too, so people can find you without relying on these smoke signals (which are dependent on other forums allowing them).

Society's triangle caste shape

2011-02-02T10:24:00.009-05:00

Priest-class vs priest-class, heretics and the role the masses play.

"Liberalism" has an intellectual hierarchy --a priest class-- in charge at academia. The media is subordinate to that; they are the disciple class spreading the cult. (Think bishops/cardinals down to their priests/ deacons.)

Bishop/cardinal classes fight each other. (Think different sects in history.)

Bishop/cardinal classes ("sects") usually don't fight as individuals but in groups.

Now here is the problem (in all history):

Only the beautiful-lie sects win, given what humans are.

1- Humans are needy, fearful and dumb. (Sorry but true.) [That is why we invented after-life cult all those many cerebrum layers ago, for one example.]

And 2- these needy fearful dumb humans are needed by the different Bishops /sects as their cannon fodder. The sect with more cannon fodder wins control over the pen (thus garnering itself even more cannon-fodder more quickly. (Talk about a 'vicious circle' building power on itself.)

Since humans are needy and dumb, the fact based sects don't hold together enough coalition support. Thus the more accurate sect is marginalized [eg from academia]. Time and time again, throughout history.

Once more into the breech... in the name of:
"energy conversion effected by entropy"
or
"who wants ice cream"?

...The story of ALL history/religion/political narrative.

That is why civilization snowballs towards more liberalism: beautiful lies acting as better coalition glue thus supporting the sects who spread those beautiful lies.

The most recent "sectarian battle" was so called "Darwinism" vs modern liberalism. Liberalism won because more people --including the Christians especially-- favored it over the ugly truth.

[Sorry but that is true. The dichotomy many of you --anglo world-- have in your heads-- "liberalism is 'nihilism' and nihilism is Darwinism and therefore Darwinism is modern liberalism" is some kind of weird mental glitch and mule stubbornness you have. It is not accurate; it has proved itself very dangerous to you and all of us.]

The sect in vogue now uses a very powerful pussy-politics that says powerful things to so many people at a root, core instinctive level. (Instincts that might indeed be tricked and corrupted but still instincts none the less.) ..."Fem sex value" and "I am protector" as male mating display; Also pro-fem is a grenade weak males throw at other males to kill them off (that is probably the "I am protector" male display taken to a weakness place by the ABGamma snowball).

The zeitgeist usually doesn't change until the economy--ie food supply/shelter apparatus --collapses enough. Sometimes that collapse comes from the ecru-ing internal greed and other human foibles inside the successful sect.

If man comes out of this zeitgeist, we need to make sure this "beautiful-lie-sect wins more often" thing never ever happens again. That is why I tell you, you must get your minds around what I say. {Go to my seanmaccloud blog : "solutions" label; those solutions will be more clear to those who grasp the "fundamentals" pages there.}

===========

[“equal opportunity” is a bedrock tenet of the American spirit]

The problem with that system or theory of government and society is that the "marxist" priest-class will have "equal opportunity" to spread their beautiful lies religion which WILL trump the other beliefs vie-ing for control over society's conforming pen.

That is why "freedom from government" is not only not possible(since the marxist priest class will create one once their beautiful lies win them power) but it is bad for us. By advocating 'freedom from government' we prevent ourselves from protecting our culture from the inevitably powerful priest-sect of political-liars that always forms (because of the bench warmer caste-structure of life).

You create a power vacuum in your society and the most motivated --ie those with axe to grind bench warmer ressentiment (like say "marxist" 'Eastern Euro' runts and/or wall-flower dames)-- will fill it. And they will use a "religion of beautiful lies" to consolidate and indoctrinate cannon fodder devotees.

That is what happened here; and most are infected with it.

Yes yes, I know: thumbs down...

Alpha beta confusion.

2011-02-02T10:20:00.008-05:00

Alpha beta confusion.

People are exhibiting confusion about how the ABGamma principle should be used. It is like this...

The class in charge might be seen as chihuahua-like (or poodle like or what have you). Ie seen as runts of the old wolf strain from which we all come. Therefore they are beta or gamma by internal fortitude.

But as for the ABGamma coup cycle itself right now, they are the "alpha class" who is ever poised to be ousted. (They will be ousted unless they employ counter strategy.)

The beta class (which might be ye olde "alpha" by internal fortitude) will try to rile up the gamma and then oust those 'alpha' douche bag SOBs. (...And put them out of their runt misery. Right down to their Florsheims and Bostonians.)

(And then we --the beta class-- will betray the gamma cannon fodder (some of which will become the new beta). ...Unless the whole ABG cycle stops. [see "below"])

So ending this ABG confusion comes down to whether one is using the ABG principle to describe evolution OR sociology. IF evolution, ABG tries to talk about our descended fortitude (or lack thereof) --and how it got to be [coup cycle of techno created and supported runts ousting lone fortitude]; if one is talking about modern sociology, ABG tries to talk about... how tasseled your shoes are (with the Florsheim shoe wearing runts on top of this upside down world we have).

(I envisioned ABGamm more as an evolutionary model. A techno fueled coup cycle explaining how the Chihuahua took over [and replaced] our once upon a time wolf breed. I really didn't mean for it to be used for every time a dude has more stuff and thus gets laid more than someone else. But alas the sexually successful is the latest "alpha" class and as such susceptible to the continuing coup cycle.)

***********
[Here you are "below"]

How does ABG stop? By understanding "politics"...

Politics is...

In childhood, "difference" and "loss" (eg caste division) as a root.

"Difference" even means down to birth order differences in personality (which are determinist creations --whether nature or nurture caused). ["Determinism" simply means domino chain reaction on the scale of the universe (billiard bank shots ever ecru-ing)--whether those domino effects are "genes" or "environments".] Birth order too means even whether boy or girl was first born etc.

[Solution to that: Only child males and as first borns; one plot of land shared with father who dies while junior becomes a father to his son. (Immortality techno is on horizon though.)]

Also the root of politics is the biochemical modules that unwittingly chemically compel us all towards hunger, greed, envy, lust.

Those modules have been selected by the universe's main fact: "limited/finite energy".

On the scale of dim sex reproduction, 'limited energy' means 'fem sex value'. In short, we fight over pu$$y; but that's too glib though. We fight 'cause we are compelled to; those "compellings" have been selected BY food/ sex bottlenecks. female "dalliance" instinct and head-games instinct --ie their emotional abuse of us-- is part of that.

...Has to be grappled with and dealt with. ...Even if boys and girls WERE "equal"; which we aint.

[solution= artificial womb (which leads to extinction of double X ers); or zero sexual mobility for females (ankle collars etc)--they stay on the one plot of land of husband in perpetuum (no access to other males); multiple wives to decrease pussy leverage; 'marry' em young so as to keep them(the females) stunted under our male level of "niceness"/childishness which we as males demand of each other.]

Certainly health differences/defects would create differences and inevitable caste (and the inevitable bench-warmer axe to grind ressentiment ;-) )

[Solution: along with only-son first borns, medical/cloning tech to ensure optimum health. ...Use to be called "eugenics" through necessity.]

Then the amount of resources/ land for those healthy surviving, "properly nurtured" sires needs to be squared. ...Not enough plots (deemed to be equal in productivity /size etc)? Then... there will be blood. And, given the way humans compete[groups], ABGamma coups would start again.

The only thing that would prevent that ABG cycle again, other than stopping all competition over difference, loss, hunger, greed, envy, lust, pussy-mind fuck, 'unequal' land-plots, bad nurture syndromes-- would be fatal-dueling as the competition ALWAYS, without technology allowing coalitions or "runt fortitude" to prevail.

All the above, in detail, has to be thought about and controlled. No more "kissing things up to god" now that we see. 'Kissing up to god' would be like closing your eyes and crossing the hiway even though we now know that traffic is there.

And be warned, the Universe itself has a tendency to want to create coalitions. Dust coalesces to stars, to cells to multi cellular, to hives to elaborate parasitic symbiosis. So what probably happens here is man replaces himself with machines, for they are the best possible tools of war --ie the best children.

(So the devil wins this round. ...God goes "you sunk my battleship. [gobsmack] Let's play again, but this time you take New Jersey!")

Now I know you all don't like me --and that's fine: I never met a people I could stomach. (Maybe if I cooked them longer. ...hmmm.) So trust, me I hate you first and hate you better. And many of you can't get me: you'll just have to look to your leaders to understand for you. But I'm still right any way: I am very, very good at this.

Man must start to get his mind around this stuff, if his centuries old utopia bullshit (millenia old actually) about a new way[tm] is to be taken seriously as anything more than just ploy and tactic (of the latest ABG coup, with its inevitable hypocritical "here come the new boss same as the old" ...minus a pecker).

Round and Round... Where She Stops?...

2011-01-22T04:24:00.006-05:00

The Rise and Fall of Civilizations.

--------------
I published this in say '99 on the net.

(It is the thing I alluded to a few weeks ago when I said "[an early post of mine deals with the civilization/technology snowball hitting a kind of matriarchy- /feminism- autopilot where it doesn't need men anymore whether they shrug to stop matriarchy or not.]")

________________
*************************

Civilizations rise and fall. Why?

()()()()()()()()()()()()()
Prerequisite:

-dimorphic sex=500myr emasculation between hermaphrodites; mature stunt immature; immature can finish growing and stunt their own immature if given the opportunity.

-gender quid pro quo=apple grower and orange grower; each trades surplus to get the other they need; female humans trade reproduction/temporary fidelity, male humans trade material goods males fight over.

-alpha beta/gamma principle=middle males rabble rouse low males and use them as tool against high males.

-civi means literate, 5500yrs ago, diffusion from Sumeria/Babylon; priest class at top and specialist variations at bottom in triangle shape caste; the consequence of larger society created by agri techno (10,000yrs ago).
()()()()()()()()()()()()()

Barbarians in two groups: alpha-robust and beta-gracile, a la alpha beta/gamma principle. Civilization is the beta-gracile of the barbarian tribal competition. Civi beats barbs because strength-in-numbers (specifically outflanking and specialist-focus techno-invention) works best.

A fledgling civi might appear male dominant compared to later phases of the same civi, but civi is gracile and effeminate compared to the surrounding barbs. The whole "matriarchies of the bush and of the past while civi is white male patriarchy that created war" narrative is incredibly fraudulent. The fact its given credence at all expose the extent of the DarkAge we are in.

Civi is in two groups: "Spartans"(barb echo) and "Athenians"(large coalitions of gracile diverse specialists). Athenians, over the long haul, beat Spartans for the same reason civi beat barbs-- large diverse specialist groups do better.

Athenians are in two groups: geniuses and fools; fools outnumber geniuses.

Fools beat geniuses for the same reason Aths beat Sparts and civi beats barbs: strength in numbers overwhelms the better, stronger, individuals.

----------------
The "fools" become more decadently "liberal", because civi's techno snowball keeps alive new and more gracile "freaky" variations. And, especially, the techno snowball creates easy lives; like puppies that never mature (stunted children). [Chinese proverb: children become weak skinned living under the shade tree planted by their parents.] Ie new nurture types can develop all manner of new chemistries and consequent reflexes --including infantile decadences.

Then the decadence and childishness--through snowballing straws on the camel's back--tilts over to de facto female emancipation, when the male fashion becomes more immature and stunted than the females. Females raise the price of her fidelity, her loyalty and respect. Some females will raise the price of the quid pro quo while other females indeed even try to mature into males, escaping stunted emasculation to become stunters.

Since men won't continue working if they can't win females through their efforts, men stop working. When men stop working, civi naturally falls into disrepair (because of the Vines of Nature doing their thing). female emancipation--the "last straw" (critical mass) of civilization's success, liberalism--collapses civi.

The surrounding barbarians (and the re toughened up--re 'robust' ized, barbarian-ized--men of the felled civi) then start the cycle over again --two groups form and then cleave: robust and gracile, barbs and civis, sparts and aths, etc-- occupying the collapsed or collapsing city like so many vines of Nature.

Each time this has happened the next emerging civilization's literate elites refuse to teach or even accept (psychological denial)-- or they can't understand--that a snowballing chain-reaction-- civi success leading to leisure, to soft skin, to female leverage, to bummed men, to disrepair--pulled down the previous civilization's infrastructure(men working). Most can't or won't see that de facto female-emancipation is what killed the "older race of man". Thus the cycle continues-- civi will fall again.

------------------
Each time the cycle happens, it becomes less likely (when female emancipation occurs) that the civi will outwardly fall, because the techno snowball is achieving a type of "auto pilot". The shell of civi is becoming impenetrable to Nature's vines, whether men work or not; not to mention, there are few surrounding true barbarians left to push the walls in and start the cycle over.

The human hive kept having false starts, but now the 5500yr old con-game of immatures ("civi") is finally permanently consummating {organizational symbiosis, or "slush balling"*}. female emancipation happened once again yet this civilization (english-french) still thrives... for now. I wonder how many more times the cycle will repeat until a permanent neo-hermaphrodite / female bio tech hive collective--like a giant termite mound "spore-ing"--spreads its "silver seeds to a new home in the sky".

{*This reference is from another post I made in tandem with this one about the Principles of the Universe... Slush balling chain-reactions create more complicated symbiotic chain-reactions.}

MacCloud

female discrimination and societal blindness to it

2011-01-12T12:06:00.009-05:00

females are just as discriminatory and superficial-- _if not more so_-- than males are. Especially true since society accepts and promotes discrimination against men and pedestal-izes female behavior. (It always has, therefor feminism's whole original root premise is faulty.)

Female lenses and criteria are simply sometimes a little different though from men's. Ie genders want different things from each other.

Eg females hate male weakness like males hate fat chicks. (I feel sorry for fat chicks [see * below] --but I'm also sorry for men, one of which is me.) And now females are "lookists" too on top of their other forms of objectification.

And females are certainly less empathic when it comes to making fun of the opposite gender (females have standard inferiority complex issues). Females are also crueler and less empathic, in most categories social babble measures (eg crime and punishment).

Society has used the different lenses boys and girls use to say "females are less discriminatory towards males than the reverse." But that is wrong. (Note that most EVERYTHING western society believes and says about gender and females is a lie, ignorance or delusion.)

To deny the above makes one either delusional, ignorant or a sycophant to female power (or makes one female which is another way of saying delusional). (That male sycophancy is a root reason men defend feminism BTW. Think monks carrying an emperor baby on a pillow.. all must bow to the procession... except the monks. )

Willfully blind bigotry, biology, gender equality hypocrisy

2011-01-10T18:38:00.000-05:00

I am very pleased with what the feminists have achieved thus far. It means that if I have any daughters - that they have a chance in society.

That's like saying "I'm in the Klu K klan and I very pleased with what the racists have achieved thus far. It means that if I have white children they have a chance."

Problem is liberal Enlightenment Age O Reason society was not supposed to be that. (It is all "unintended consequence" snowballing along*). So if liberal society becomes an apparatus to achieve unconstitutional anti male bigotry and female pedastilizing deification, something is very, very wrong.

(*It is INSTINCT to fight over female sexual value; it is HUMAN instinct to fight over it by displaying protector ability in a quid pro quo. And now modern civi keeps alive too many low IQ males who are simply machines of libido instinct(eg people like you); thus they are stuck in a groove... A very politically efficient groove.

Ie hypocrisy regarding this "gender equality experiment" was inevitable given the underlying biological truth of the human species.)

The fact you don't perceive your belief as bigotry(and can't/don't grapple with the underlying biological motivations for it) says reams about YOU.

Solutions

2011-01-09T12:24:00.002-05:00

IQ tests in childhood and then marginalization of the those with IQs below say 120 ish solves ALL problems.

Also tests in childhood for "future tense perception / honesty" with marginalization of those who don't cut muster solves all problems.

If not, the neo cortex become extinct, as mankind turns itself into a hive of drones filled with all of the once fought-against "oppressions" necessary for such dynamics to prevail.

===========
=======

Morality is a chemical chain reaction. (Like love or hate or jealously etc.) It (they) can be understood potentially. (Observe lab rat studies.)

Serial killers don't kill because they are "immoral" or "evil". They do because they have different chemicals in them; those chemical differences have been shaped by nature/nurture dominoe effects over the serial killer's formation. (The nurture part of that domino equation is the more complicated more profound part actually.)

Well take that extreme serial killer example/model and apply it to anything else in the behavior realm.

Alcoholics or fat people or _whatever._

Note lab rats injected with this or that chemical --or having various environmentally induced stresses applied -- have their behavior patterns fundamentally changed. They become cuddlier or cannibalistic just by tweaking their hormones etc or shaping childhood contingencies.

You have small minds and are not getting your minds around this.

Also as far as "philosophies" for why we do what we do... An _honest_ understanding of nature --"naturalism"-- will put things in perspective.

Eg teens don't fight or vandalize because they haven't found god yet. They are sexual pubescents attempting to establish sexual maturity/territory.

Or another example, "the evil other is coming to take me away he he, ha ha; the evil god must 'ave sent them to hurt our good god." We now understand these could be food supply/contentment/population etc issues (along with the above sexual territory desire), as we all migrate around writing a tale from our own perspective and seeing everyone else in OUR storyline as two dimensional in THEIR motivations --ie evil-- unlike us.

Religion based morality has failed to understand and solve the things it wants to understand and solve.

Next... The claim that "science is trying to make us all the same/ trying to alleviate or micro-control every ouchy." ...Well the deep-felt demand for alleviation is already there. That is why there is the plastic surgery industry; the diet book business; the remedial tutoring business etc, etc. Those methods are just sloppier at addressing this need.

As Star Trek's Dr McCoy said, "[It was barbaric, Jim (referring to 20th Cent medicine): cutting into people with things they called scalpels.]"

I understand that science will probably screw up this potential deep-understanding of how 'we' work... `cause humans suck. But it isn't like religion hasn't already failed at understanding any of this too.

As for the claim "scientists /atheists are just looking for excuses to have authority"... Well, There is no such thing as a world without someone/some group having the trump-say and/or winning (through one mechanism or another). That's all cross-canceled out stuff.

Now a bad thing to say about scientists/atheists... This panacea of edumacation will NEVER work. Hence my handle at salon.com.

(LetTheNuclearCullingBegin)

Raising Arizona

2011-01-09T11:10:00.000-05:00

I would imagine the motive was immigration issues.

I also imagine the media KNOWS THIS.

Therefore the media saying the motive is "unknown" while at the same time connecting it to health care reform (more popular despite the astroturf) is typical media trick of the Ve is all equal freedom of speech culture.

The NY times Raising Arizona

2011-01-09T10:59:00.003-05:00

I sent this to the times…

=========================
I question the timing of this article in the times. “The Study of Males”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/education/09men-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&ref=education

Some female POL in Az just got shot in the head by some mentally ill “tea partier.” (Badly nurtured or abused… That’s what would be said, if the situation had different victims and perps.)

I wager the times ‘male studies’ story was sitting on the back burner waiting for an opportune time so it could equate it with “violence” or etc negative.

————————
Also, that Charles McGrath article did not give good examples of extremism in the anti feminist movement.

A good example is…

http://seanmaccloud.blogspot.com/

…But denouncing those who don’t pray to females is a function of this upside down world you all (liberals, christians, “marxists”, capitalists) have created which is breeding the neo cortex into extinction faster than you can say Yankee Doodle.

=================
End letter to times.

Begin note to spearhead about the above:

You guys want to play with the big boys, you need to learn the game.

That game is “Ve is all equal and freedom of speech” as demonstrated above by the times.

====================
Mary Daly did say “[the male population should be kept at 10%].” I agree with that actually. *Which 10%* is the battle though.

Solution

2011-01-07T12:54:00.002-05:00

Micro communities (ultimately on space platforms), father to only-son land handoff and bio tech making people so similar they are as machines, zero sexual mobility for fem sex value to artificial womb/female breeding.

The only solution. (More “equality/freedom/rights” schpiel is flat-earther talk; it is not a solution.)

======

This "diversity is good because it allows some humans to continue" is a warped lens like 'matriarchies of the past' is. A successful academic spreading meme that is wrong.

I'd rather focus man's energies on _curing_ disease rather than letting the diseases have their way with just "some" of us. I don't want man to just be grist for the natural selection mill.

"Diversity is good" ultimately means chaff. (Not to mention Balkanized civil wars forever as new 'races' form and grapple.)

---------

Changing what society calls illness is as wishful as "just say no" politics. Cure it or terminate.

The logic of "acceptance" could apply to any difference /illness/dysfunction in the species.

By letting every variant live we are just creating new Balkanized "races" and a demand for new protection apparatus. Life=Zero sum game; One loses.

====

=========
Anti fem so far is a "doomed venture".

So people go back to profiteering behind some other mask; or to furiously masturbating to the internet.

The sky is turning red. The rains will come next: The hibernating frogs will come out of their sand holes and gribbit the days and nights away. ...The politicking bureaucrat type will organize "donations"; the warriors will run and outflank and kill in all their glory; executioners will execute.

"Conciousness" still isn't raised enough. Not to mention perspicacious aptitude is still too low among the set. False --and failed --notions still abound. "Doomed venture" implication is thus seen by those with perspicacity.

A "critical mass" has not been achieved yet. Lightning rods [leaders] don't go up until storm clouds gather(murmurings in the crowd --followers). Without those storm clouds, a lightning rod is just a boar in a bar.

============

What if the guy being politically reeducated in your slapping story above was a feminist white knight mangina?

What if political reeducation was the only way to stop that guy?

================
There is nothing wrong with males being one tenth the population. The problem is it's the WRONG one tenth(idiots fools animals etc) the machine is breeding for.

============
As an evil socialist social engineer elite-- I want to prevent birth order effects which create much or most of the caste issues and personalities difference between people (thus hindering clarity, scope and consensus).

=============

We simply need a revolution to CULL society of every last being that supports such feminsit /equality gibberish.

High tech military support-- at least a plurality of it --will be necessary.

============
Homeschooling can be now done through the computer. Find the best teacher of a thing (only like one per town or whatever) and have them teach EVERYONE one else through making a video class. That is better than warehousing 30 brats in a pecking order in some classroom.

==============

The whole regime of western culture needs to be ousted. (And trust me it is men. Dumb brunette males en masse; they're in everything.)

The repubs will not stop any of this. That is a false hope. And not enough people will vote for 3rd party "independents".

======================

Feminsim /liberalism all goes away once the so called right understands that killing is good; Abortion is good; eugenics is good; so called darwinism is rightist and good; fascist-socialism is good; that we come from a "patriarchy of the past" made matriarchal through technology-civilization-jebus cult-capitalism-"growth"-democracy.

Until that understanding happens, there is no reason for the BETTER MEN to lead anyone.

So back to masturbating to the internet.

Death to democracy.

Testing and sterilization.

=================

Child brides.

I very much believe the age of "consent" should be lowered to historical levels for females. (Puberty.)

That is the only real way to stop feminism [and the feminists know that], since feminism is simply the inevitable results of females "maturing" in this culture of effete git males. (Ie civilization.)

[And the feminists know that too.]

The fact that you types don't understand that or advocate that says all ones needs to know about how you will never, ever, never --in million, gazillion --years ever stop feminism. Ever. Even if you clammer for a tax break everyday 24/7 super loud you won't stop feminism.

And you know why? 'Cause you are retarded for genetic reasons. It is what civilization breeds for. If not for civi your ilk--all of you-- would be long dead in battle over breeding rights. [And the feminists kinda get that too... Though they really only one mindedly understand gender stuff, then they fall right off the cliff of insight.]

===============

We should have arranged marriage again. "Sympathetic romance" is another failed Euro invented policy, going back almost ages (in some quarters).

===========

...no woman deserves to be beaten"

Wrong. And 'beaten' is interesting choice of words.

===============

You don't believe in killing an enemy that is enslaving you?

===============

Magic won't work. Because magic/god aint real.

But loopy fems think magic is real. And therefore having them think we are using magic against them will work. Ie made-obvious spells towards them will work. (Note witches hate you wearing black and red.)

(God is less real than magic; ie it is possible to have a mystical plane of activity without any of our god beliefs being real.)

=========

If at that time "we" don't advocate a strong state _purposly and vehemently suppressing certain freedoms and classes/breeds,_ we will be right here again.

=============

I say we support feminist's goal of dismantling the _american_ R&D community.

The men in power know that it is suicide to play games with US R&D science tech. So they diverted the females away from it. They patted wimmins on the head.

I say we join forces with our "sisters" and expose the sexist congress for marginalizing the females and their important "equality in science & tech" agenda at once!

Then we can move on to helping females become most the of the military too. It is more than about time!

When will this outrage against wimmins end?!!

Call your congressthing now!!

More wimmin in the military and police now!

Make the west put up or shut up...

Betcha can't...

====================

Christianity and anti feminism are NOT synonymous. Feminism means feminism nothing more and nothing less.

Useful idiots of conservatism

2011-01-02T16:13:00.004-05:00

Late soviet Russia etc and China etc were more to the right on feminism, immigration, homosexuality than america and britain ever were. I defy any of you to demonstrate otherwise.

(Please teach me. But don't bother publishing some pages from some books written a century (or whenever) ago about the goals of a marxist revolution. Also note that if conservatives consider the marxist revolution bad then why do they advocate democracy and all the enlightenment claptrap _since that stuff is the slippery slope "road to socialism"?_ And why did they fight the "fascists"?

Democracy trends inevitably lead to "marxist" social reforms, as history has seen through the 'american 20th century'. Even if that is unintended (ie not part of 'the book's' american revolutionary goals), it is none the less the way it went down.)

The reasons later Russ etc and China etc were to the right of western conservatives are probably that Soviet military comportment for males and the way those nations fought during the mid 20th century; and also lack of techno growth. That had some kind of UNintended consequence on their "group psychology" --it 'hardened' them-- which then led to swatting the female/liberal humping dog off soviet society's leg.

What "conservatives" lens through when looking at political issues is whether or not an area has jesus cult (or "feotal rights"), techno growth(which is the root of liberalism BTW) and some undefined political euphemism (ie politico stump trick) called "freedom for the people." ("freedom for the people:" ie radical fringe liberalism of the past ...before conservatives imbibe it as "common wisdom".)

And that lens is caused by simple instinctual nationalist impulse --like a guard dog who barks at 'other' on instinct. Ie no real thought or big picture --just a dog brain howling, looking to keep other dogs "out". That instinct conservatives have is why they are ALWAYS used as "useful idiots" by western cosmopolitan liberalism (ie feminism and etc academic and social revolutions).

To see how the western conservatives are simply the military wing and wallet of snowballing social liberalism [which is NOT "progressive"--rather cult like actually], one need look no further than the west's war on moslem countries now. That is an example of how the above phenom of 'inevitable acceptance of fringe liberalism as Common Wisdom and then becoming a useful idiot' has always worked.

http://seanmaccloud.blogspot.com/

High liberals are going to have to wake up to the fact that people are not equal inherently (bred to be feudal serfs actually) and their different nurture syndromes just make that truth worse. And 2-) that the western "rights machine" (more a business now) has thrown people under the bus -- through phenomena that should be understandable to high liberal types since they use complexity based, psychobabble understandings in other cases when it suits their purposes. Also further wake up to the fact that liberalism doesn't achieve its original stated goals.

(Not to mention much of the 'rights machine' was dis ingenuously motivated by and vectored in by savvy middle brow immigrants.)

E=boybad girlgood squared

2010-12-29T02:49:00.005-05:00

Like my first thing posted; Written around '97. (I posted first at a now dead site connected to my old isp and then later at delphi forums.) It has many of my general motifs in it, in early demo form.

I reposted it to usenet like half a dozen years ago with a little intro. I found that version with the intro through google usenet now.

(I had a HDD crash in 2001, losing all my early everythingS --writings, art, music, photos, porn.)

Here it is. Make of it what you will.

=======================================

In the begining I wasn't as, um, able to get my ideas out as, um, concisely as I do now (ehem). (I'm a tortured genius and the torured part comes across in my prose. How impolite of you to notice.)

I am self taught at everything I do (a remarkable list of skills, trust me), including speaking properly and writing. I was raised like most by a single fem parent and I was a bit of a social victim (like most) and a wanna be hood [dropped out while still in freshmen year of HS, dealt drugs, "ran with the wrong crowd" and etc].

When I first matured in the mid 90s (becoming say 25), I was full of ideas (which had been brewing before that even) but I didn't know how to write properly and I didn't know how to type. So my early sorties into the great wide open called the 'net were sort of, um, "interestingly formed up"; and spelled less well than I do now, if that's even imaginable.

"E=boybad girlgood squared" was my first literate attempt to make sense of what has happened here and to fight back. It is a general open response to the anti male demonization that defined and defines our world; my goal was attempting to counter the myth of female cosmic justice saintlyness (which is apparently the main left rally standard that motivates them [: "males have fucked 'it' up. Now lets let wymyn try"]).

(Some might notice that some of my schpeel has become part of the anti fem [my coinage too] lexicon now)

To da schpeel...

=======================
E=boybad girlgood squared

OR Hedonism Uses Sophistry To Legitimize Oppression.

Its relativity dear Watson...

Has anyone noticed that 19 Cent. 'phrenology' and anthropolgy and Nazi-science were subtle and sophisticated compared to the modern anti male bigotry "sciences".

Contemporary society has a multitude of non-compatible gender assertions about Nature, mammalology, primatology, paleo-anthro, anthro, history/archeo and psyco/soci babble. Most are cult delusion or hedonism and most of the rest are embarassing displays of academic hack conformity, relativism and ignorance. One particular contemporary paradigm says males are mean. Other paradigms say Nature is female controled utopia; e.g. bonobos (fading pygmy chimp species). What these paradigms say instead is gender science is very, very relativistic. The people who assert the "demonic males" thing should debate the "matriarchies of the past" crowd.
_______________
As for males being bad... Yes, I agree-- males ARE bad.....to other males. Males fight each other to the death over females overtly far more often than females do over males. To the extent males are bad to--controling of--females, males are protecting themselves from other males by preventing the female's purposeful selectively-bred flirtation from enticing other males into the arena (of male against male death) and secondly males are reacting to her stress inducing allusiveness and control-tactic provocation (in human parlance= "Head games"--emotional abuse). females have their strategies and males have different ones; female strategies are for hurting the males while male strategies are for hurting other males, over females as catalysts.

female hammer hitting male knee. Contemporary relativism blames kicking foot for breaking vase but doesn't trace causation back to hammer. Why? Simple: female value deserves payment; for humans this payment is obsequious, hipocritical (down right delusional) connotation of female character and male self effacing and abasing chilvalrous self-imolation (e.g. man throwing himself into the water around the sinking Titanic etc.). That is, its self effacing self-imolation when the payment isn't directly fighting to the death over female value and female provocation (and her RICO Statute crime commissioning).
_______________
Dimorphic Sexuality-- 800-500 Mill.Yrs for animal kingdom:

It is a stuntification (emasculation) attack. "I got your nose" on the scale of Sexual Reproduction. This impulse was selected as efficient in some niche of hermaphroditic critters and has been variating into different organisms ever since. [vertebrates: 450MYR]

females don't volunteer this and they don't remain female if given a choice--they become males and stunt their own underlings.

Gender is not static/permanent (hardwired), even if it appears so. It is constantly branching into different things over the long haul. We can see it unfolding "over the short haul" in the gender-softwired organisms (from some, the vertebrates come). E.g. some mollusks (et.al.). They're born hermaphrodites and the ones that mature first stunt (emasculate) and enharem their younger siblings. If something happens to the mature sibling --the male-- the second most mature sibling of the harem --a female-- will, unstunted, mature into the male and continue to stunt "his" females(stuntoids), including the ousted ex-male; Or if you remove and isolate a female from a harem, she will continue growing and become an hermaphrodite again until it is pit against competitors and the whole Ugly-truth [crushing Beautiful-lies] plays out all over again [whether academia and media likes it or not].

females are reproductive portals and therefore unwittingly more valuable than males and males are better at doing stuff, because of this. Males are fighting each other to get through the "bottle neck" and this is a selection pressure.

The modern anti male "sciences" conjure narratives about dimorphic sex social-sexual dynamics without explaining underlying dimorphic sexuality fundamentals because, I assert, they stupidly don't know them or are egregious censors.

Or some anti male "scientists" conjure their narratives but contest emasculation-attack-dynamic as the vector of dimorphic sex (for political empowerment reasons more than any other) and assert in its stead that dimorph sex is a voluntary partnership symbiosis. Well of course dim. sex. is a symbiosis, thats obvious, but females[immature hermaphrodites] obviously, don't voluntarily give up their male appendages. If the left's belief--"dimorph. sex. creation is voluntary"--is true then the females are even Less excusable for the male under-value problems and violence in the male eschelon and certainly less excusable for the "male redundancy" praying mantis-like dynamics which abound.
_______________

Exclusively, the dimorphic sex dynamics which include death during the breeding event are female controled dynamics; E.g. praying mantises, black widows, lighting bugs, hives, scorpions, spiders, etc etc. (maybe a majority of arthropods[2Mill spp] and maybe some fish and birds[which is the redundant male potential getting way to close to home]). Misandrony passes itself on more easily than misogyny, because of the reproductive mechanics of dimorphic sex--sperm egg ratio and females' seminal reservoir.

Many "science" venues that point this "male redundancy" out do so in a "BEHOLD... the mighty female--she is strong and wise" way. This exposes the contemporary cult-like political relativism once again: if the contemporary pro female chivalrous relativism sees Nature filled with strong and cruel females--strong and cruel is a positive--females (killing males) are mighty and good; if this relativism sees Nature filled with strong and cruel males (strongly and cruely beating each other, over female value)--strong and cruel is a negative--males are cowardly and bad or demonic even.

And certain male humans--often ones who lost their battles against other males in childhood(practice fighting over females, ultimately)--use this "male-is-bad" paradigm as a courtship display. Many male humans throw pro female grenades at competitor male humans. These chivalrous males can't see this grenade has a kill radius larger than its throw radius.

Along with those female-bads above, the "boy bad girl good" "sciences" ignore, or spin into pro female narratives, the following:

females engage in parasitism more often, injecting their eggs into all manner of victims(the young eat their way out): males of their own species, siblings, competiting females, children, other species.

Hives are overwhelmingly matriarchies yet hives are perpetually warlike and non self-aware dumb, selectively breeding kamikazees, slaves and males as infantile sex fodder and food.

female mammals abuse children and the weaklings around them. E.g. female lions kill others' children but don't eat them--and females of other species--incl primates--do this same thing, And female hyenas, when not eliminating other's young, kill each other and males from childhood to adult hood, over status. And of course human females beat and kill their own children more often than biological fathers do; first violence human child experiences is at female hands, say left studies. And "gendercide" political belief is exclusively a female construct and option.

A key male-as-demonic narrative, while ignoring the above female-bads, looks at males that kill young. Just like when the females do it, this is unwitting way of increasing individual reproductive--evolutionary--success (Nature is unwitting variations being unwittingly selected). Nature is always--and will always be--red in tooth and claw -- period. The left believes--in delusional cult like fashion--that it has some solution to Nature; the left --and america in general-- believes in cosmic justice utopia like a religious cult of loonies--a cult that goes uncontested as it brainwashes.

Yes, getting rid of the males Will cause the males to no longer be 'perpetrating' the unwitting acts but it won't change the underlying pressures (Nature) that selected him to be the way he was from then selecting out the same traits again in the next dominant type to ascend. As stated immediately above, females eliminate competition too(female hyenas for example). Its the unwitting way Nature does business: Limited/finite amount of energy(food) available, too many extended sibling variants fighting over it; the siblings are energy(food) too.

One point the relativism overlooks in the "male as killer of young" narrative is that the mother of the young being killed enticed the male on to the territory with her sexual display. E.g. female lions spray all over the place and cause new males to come to the territory and fight the established males to the death(female is oppressing males) and if the new males win they proceed to kill previous males' cubs (eliminate the competition) the mother bode them to (aint Nature great?). This is female lion's unwitting way of passing her own genes* on more successfully by tieing them to the best possible males--males selected as best or worst by arenas she unwittingly created. (*chemical chain reactions creating impeteuses[e.g. impeteus to spray all over])

female mammals and reptiles are generally weaker and slower, smaller, stupider(for relevant species) and more timid than the males (as a side effect of males fighting over females). This is an echo of the emasculation battle that created dimorphic sex. But female weakness, which is at once denied and praised, is not more noble its just weak and sneaky and obviously outside of Man's chivalrous relativistic lensing.
________________________
Relativistically processing relatives. Historically, male strength in primates etc was once denied by the left while the right (hint: not the GOP or christians) used male strength in primates etc as example of male supremacy. Now, in classic political flip flopping fashion, certain portions of the left agree--males are strong in Nature(at least in hominoids) but now strength is bad --unless of course the females have it.
________________________
liberalism's latest "poster chimps". Hedonists and humanists find their latest "golden-calf" to support their "sacred cow"(feminism) in bonobos. Bonobos(pan paniscus), according to contemporary relativist's assertions, are female dominant lovers and don't fight. The fact that the male paniscus do fight--leading to acute or atricional death--over female sexual provocation and the fact that paniscus has the best food supply of the hominoids--leading to less acute competiton--is not developed by the boybad girlgood "sciences"(its not the supposed female dominance that causes their supposed peace, its the economy, stupid). To show how flip flopping relativism works just look at history: most of the species asserted as bad--especially normal chimps(pan troglodites)--were held up as exemplary utopianites during the 1960s and before; now the boybad-ites say they are killers--demonic killers. Of course they are! Everything stomps and kills in Nature (one way or another) its just a question of political spin. Eventually the antiseptic eye of reason will study bonobos and the hedonists and humanists and hacks will move their relativistic false-utopia myopic lense somewhere else.

Hedonism disclaimer: I am not a moralist. I'm simply not delusional or insane. I'm NOT a mindless gland without a brain, like hedonist cultists are.

As far as gender utopia primates, Gorrilas have the least chaotic and least violent social sexual dynamic. Autocratic Patriarchal Polygyny [APP, yeah you know me]; One breeding age male per territory, approx 20 females per group. Infidelity--i.e. female emancipation[choice, "divorce", status, control]--is not possible.
______________________
Political propaganda, physchological warfare. These non compatible "modern science" narratives are examples of the endless ubiquitous derision from all caste of society stigmatizing males.

Even if female dominance does create a world of peace without killing (it doesn't everywhere else though) why would a man want to be controlled by a female? Why would a high IQ man want to be a bonobo? A bonobo male is an isolated loner on the outskirts of his tribe who has no children he knows and no control over the conspiring manipulating females. You, as males, never felt the stress in your chest over being an isolated male in a world of cliquish misandronistic females teasing and controling you with secretive conspiratorial betrayful manipulation? And FYI, female dominace for humans is much closer to hive dynamic than to anything seen through relativistic interpretations of mammals. Why would a man want to be an idiot droned slave , disposable --"redundant"-- laborer in an ant hive?

There is no reason to let the human females get above the men, because the females will do the same to men men did to females only the men won't have as much leverage because of the sperm egg ratio--females will be in a cliquish sorority conspiracy against men. females will have the reproductive advantages, unless of course the females are successful at becoming men and making men females--ala softwired hermaphrodites(bio techs or freaky variations getting selected and replacing original Mankind could do this). But that defeats the whole narrative which claims "female is oppressed and freeing females offers the Universe(Nature) something different--a cosmic justice utopia". It doesn't -- no reason for the males to abdicate.

It could also be easily said that male humans don't have the power to abdicate in the first place. The human female is the most dependant female mammal ever(excluding mole rat); shes like a baby. The human female is the only mammal on the planet that crys as an adult, because the male human is a born protecter and the female human is a born manipulator. It is obvious that one would be hard pressed to find another female mammal with the kind of leverage against her species' males that the female human has against male humans in our species' social sexual dynamic. One would be hard pressed to find any creature with the life the female human has. The male human, other than his genius, is not dissimilar to other males as far as the way he fights and dies over females--his wounds, scars and battles and such; the time scale and scope has changed very recently, from males fighting to the death one on one/few on few every season, to males fighting every couple of generations in huge hive against hive slaughters. We are not talking about the men abdicating power in the name of an unachievable delusion called equal/freedom, we are talking about eliminating the male as the service class in favor of a female exclusive caste structure--protector and protectee--leaving the males without Any leverage and protection against the obvious real misandrony which is always more abundant than misogyny. All of this wrapped up in the blather of Fair/equal utopia.

Life is not fair. Fair--like equal, freedom justice, rights--is a political euphemism--a tool of war for achieving victory, superiority and dominance, unwittingly or not. Different variations form in a world with not enough to go around and these variations fight in sibling rivalry battles; some variations(species) snowball down the path of "strength-in-numbers sibling rivalry" strategy--"hatfields and mccoys". Freedom/equal etc etc demagoguery is simply a tool for holding together the strength-in-numbers coalitions; ants have pheromones and humans have bullsh!t narrative-- "liberte e' equalite".

Our fore fathers--normal men--were very silly for being so sappy and decent--er ah... I mean demonic--that they fought and slaved so hard for the "equal *time* under the law", utopia we are now enjoying.

MacCloud

NEW BLOG FORMAT IMMINENT

2010-12-26T18:13:00.005-05:00

I'm going to go to a blog style of "permanent pages of fundamentals" in one section (as pages at right) and "occasional entries" as another section (the column of posts you're reading now).

I have things to say which I don't want muddying up the fundamentals.

I sometimes read different online news sites or current event blogs. There are things there said and done which often piss me off. Having access to a voice now too (ie the web), gives me a chance to shout back.

Some of these occasional entries might make it into fundamentals. You ALL SHOULD KNOW these fundamentals ALREADY you dopes of a culture of dopes.

...Once there were words. Caveman says: "me cup". Then there were sentences: "pass your cup to me" or "here's my cup". Now there is "paradigm as parts of speech": "Energy Conversion Principle(ie 'finite force/matter') makes equality rhetoric ultimately empty and therefore simply tactical whether the sexually displaying speaker knows this about his module-induced altruist compulsion or not". Man is just coming to that "paradigm as parts of speech" place now--but the masses aint keeping up.

I will link to the fundamental pages when the "occasional entries" demand it.

------------
In keeping with this format change, my first "occasional entry" follows.

The "pages of fundamentals etc" will develop as I desire.

===========================
From:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-12-25/iranian-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejads-brutal-artist-crackdown/?om_rid=NsfhqN&om_mid=_BNF12JB8WrYBeV

----
Interesting that the article doesn't include a link to the offending works.

Things that should make you go hmmm...

Typical media slight of hand.

I will [google] search the titles to see what the fuss was about.

The accused and now sentenced filmmaker(s) might be of dangerous crackpot ilk.

I know in the west crackpots have taken over. And you are all in a kind of alliance with each other; kinda like a racism of stupidity and insanity vs those who aint of said. But for the rest of the world, crackpots are still seen as dangerous crackpots.

Unfortunately we don't know whether the subject was a crackpot or not since the article --typical for such media stories-- is not a complete story.

(It was a movie about "sexually repressed wimmin in Iran having it rough".)

---
The west puts people in jail etc all the time in the west for being part of the wrong beliefs. We certainly make it more than a little difficult to live for people who don't conform to western mores --especially if those non conformists are genetically white men. (Eg child erotica, mormon types; academics or media upstarts who don't conform to feminism etc; people who are in "non compliance" with various unconstitutional "equality" etc polices.)

Not to mention the west is absolutely guilty of creating VICTIMS of the single female parent (a uniquely western phenom); and the no pair-bonding thing (simply, regular sex for _everyone_ thing) the west has done to itself and now tries to infect the world with through war and underhanded lies (NGOs etc --many of which ARE illegally state/"spook" sponsored).

Then there is the serial killers; and victims of crimes unique to western culture's unique level of balkanization.

This is a balkanized society the west prides itself on being and studiously censors the downsides of. Eg crime, future civil wars if /when economies fail, "snake in the trench" political complexity(eg groups fighting _each other_ instead of say feminism or their local representative corruption).

The crackpots and ignoramuses and liars who have taken over the west and now most of the world in the last few centuries simply say that shutting down --or worse-- the heterodox types is necessary for "freedom".

=========

"No one any where on this earth.... should be killed-imprisioned-stoned-be-headed etc. for anything they believe in!"

I "believe in" the FACT that female humans are not intellectually, physically or --importantly-- "morally" equal with male humans. (Also fem humans get many unique special privileges which are unconstitutional and rooted in lies and delusions.) As a consequence of that, I believe fem hums should have their rights and freedoms fundamentally infringed and controlled by overseers who view them as profoundly dangerous citizens.

I want to make movies about that that are hip and romanticized, geared towards upwardly mobile youth. And I want state sponsorship in the forms of grants and protection (from tax payers ultimately) while I do it.

Do you still believe what you just said now?

(This "freedom" "justice" "rights" "equality" nonsense is empty rhetoric of a cult that has imbibed and profited off the delusions of the "enlightenment" for so long they can't see how hypocritical and uneducated and dishonest, ultimately, they really are.)

The Men's Rights Movement is loaded with milquetoast.

2010-12-26T18:12:00.012-05:00

The Men's Rights Movement is loaded with milquetoast. The below-aptitude and uneducated nature of anglo democracy (or Irish/Scot run continents or however you want to frame it) causes the "why fem is happening" theories, and arguments made (to either wimmins or pro fem males) and solutions proffered to be a waste.

========================

Note to evil whitemale empire:

Yes “Killa Magilla” is/was me at the spearhead. (Welmar already knew that though, I think.)

I have been blocked there more times than I care to count; and banned out right at their forum pages a few months ago. On the main blog comments’ pages my stuff is lost in “moderation limbo”–I can see my posts there but no one else can). So that Killa Magilla handle (a nod to pro-rasslins’ fixed fights) is a kinda-like sarcastic thing I use to bust his ball.

Your last post to me there (the spearhead/ ‘guyland’ thread) is on target too. It seems you and “LSP/MRA” and one other guy (similar to you [his name escapes me right now]) gets it. Good.

I _do_ understand that we all can’t just live in the hills as uncivilized pre-Roman anti capitalists barbarians who never mature past the the 5th-6th grade pecking order level --the lord of the flies' way. But at least we all need to understand what is happening here. And it isn’t that we come from matriarchies that turn into patriarchies by being “growthful” capitalists in democracies that fight “soviets” (while actually fighting for them in our own democratic countries where these “communists” have long since taken over and have metastasized into american “freedom” BS.)

And some day maybe my hard kill em all rhetoric needs to temper. But not now.

—
And to LSP MRA (if you see this). You got banned from the spearhead forum months ago(right after, um, Usher did). I tried to get your email to write you and see where you were posting but couldn’t. It is good to see you still in action.

Welmer et al is NOT going to let us communicate /touch base there.

Send me emails (both of you)–if you must/want to– at my blog page. I can’t promise any action [I suspect that pisses you off MRA], given my doing-my-own-thing lifestyle. But at least I will know where you [all] is.

==================
A response to MRA/LSP: (with 'matriarchy of past' counterpoints in it...)

Re my posts...

I do have other things for my blog in notepads (quite a few actually). But much is just rehashings of previous thoughts; attempts to figure out the perfect way of explaining things so as to grip hearts and minds best). _I'm thinking of rearranging my blog into "pages" --eg "fundamentals" and "matriarchy of past" or "Capitalism". That would be better than the "latest entry" style I have used so far. I cold more easily link to ideas when I need them. (Though linking to just a paragraph from one of those future pages would be the best system.)

--------------
The times that I have wanted to post at welmer's are when the matriarchy of the past proponents bubble up.

I have said it _all already_ I thought.

BUT...

"Plow use" and the like as definition of "patr" or "matri". That is crypto white supremacy pretending it is about gender.

(Don't get me wrong I am a ginger supremacist (and gingers are of the whites). I was even more of a north Euro Nationalist once. And a Third Reich apologist... if it pisses off the right soggy parades. And I am of the "uber mensch vs unter mensch" school of Nietzschean/Wagnerian philosophy. But that was always more poetic analogy about the trend man is on [see the alpha beta gamma snowball] than strictly racial. "Hero-age morality vs ascending-slave-morality" is about whats happening in a tribe not between tribes.)

WNs want to put their "look at the white man's achievements" chart up in any forum that will have it. And their logic then is tortured round peg into square hole hammering. If one wants to say whites are smarter just say it. (Try the 35,000 year old grass cloth weaving or 30,000 year old specialized tool kits with many different needles and knives while Japs/Siberoids[runners up] have far fewer types or the South Euro cave paintings.)

Along with plow use, I've seen, in my life, arguments [by libs] like "calorie rates of veggies verses calorie rates of meat" as definition of "matri vs patri." ...You see the tribal females bring back 58% of the tribe's food as turnips they dug up and the males only bring 42% of the tribes food as flesh. "So you see: it is matriarchy" [eye roll].

The liberals invented all of that jazz as part of their female empowerment schpiel; and as part of their "psych warfare" against males of the 19th century-- trying to knock the males down "a few pegs" psychologically. ('Taking the piss' out of them.)

Conservatives are conformists first and foremost. (Like a barking dog bred to his role.) They conform to the "common wisdom." Common wisdom is simply the liberal revolution of the previous generation (as percolated through something called the "normative consensus" which is the mode aptitude of the population). ...Thus the dumb mule (of conservatism) gets dragged ...ever braying as though he doesn't like it but always accepting his latest tie-point as best.

Liberal's are motivated by their bench warmer status in childhood. They try to throw monkey wrenches into the game so as to get back at the starting line up types (who are hubris filled /blind).

[Ethnics are not actually "liberals"; they are conservative wolves in liberal sheep clothing who were let in by the bench warmer males of the host culture (or jews now too who have metastasized into europeans of the BencWarm-type) looking to "coalition up" with anybody they can so as to get back at the host culture's alpha.]

A better definition of matri vs patri is 'are the females winning the psychological battle of the sexes around childhood and puberty and later?' That is profound and very susceptible to interpretation unfortunately; but at least it cuts to the heart of it rather than relying on "This means That" logic.

"This means That" logic: ...Tchaikovsky composed good ballets, can't stay married and da gays like/perform ballet... Therefore Tchaikovsky is gay. Meanwhile the actual definition of being gay for males is liking ejaculate etc.

In these so called tribal matriarchies --where the females "bring back most of the calories"-- are the mothers of little girls being fucked and hit in front of the little girls; are they being married off as pubescents; are their roles limited? (They lived in one room huts .. but I guess only had sex and argued when the kids went to summer camp [sarcasm].) If they are, feminists would call it hard core _abusive patriarchy_ -- "devastatingly damaging to the forming girls' sense of self" --if the same household dynamic was happening in the west --regardless of where the turnips came from.

But that hypocrisy/spin is typical of matri vs patri arguments: A given thing is interpreted one way for one culture but a totally opposite way for another...

In the tribe, men storing in a secret tree hollow a rock that looks like a vulva with slit ('cause of water erosion or what have you) would be deemed an example of the "goddess worship of nature" -- "they respect the feminine there". But in western culture the same exact secret stash (this time stored under Timmy's mattress ...covered by Lord of the Rings/ Hobbit [tm] forest print sheets) is denounced as "an example of western smut objectifying and belittling female role".

It is all "just so" tales. (Motivated by the political issues above.)

(Also note --if one wants to play the sophistry spin, motivated by self esteem issues-- game, the amino acids in cooked flesh are the reason why the extra ganglia layers in the cerebrum formed. So therefore the males are 42 TIMES more responsible for intelligence than females. So nya-nya. But that is all "this means that" which has nothing to do with actual matriarchy vs patriarchy definitions.

As I said before, 'Matriarchy of the past' types dismiss out of hand any mention of male violence towards females and male jealousy trying to rope female behavior in. Their arguments pretend that whole --_very relevant_-- category is not there (for their own runt reasons [in short, they're a-scared of girls and don't want to pick fights]) and meanwhile focus on and amplify that "this mean that" economy stuff [for reasons I tried to grapple with above]. Violence against wimmins --whether captured bride/ rape or discipline for dalliance and disrespect-- is relevant because it effects everyone's psychological dispositions, and more in ways we don't lens through now, having fundamentally different psychologies (which developed in us recently given our modern socialization).

The same folks who can't get that are by and large the same ones who still don't get how natural selection works. (I'm just saying... these are not dry campers.)

And as far as simple political arguments(meaning I want to pull the stakes out of the big tent of bedfellows)... These same people who believe 'we come from matriarchies made patriarchal through capitalist growth' are the same chivalrists coming to the spearhead recently saying the men should buck it up and carry more.

..."Sugar and spice and everything nice vs puppy dog tails and snails" is from the supposedly high patriarchy period of western culture. As is the "don't hit girls" thing. As is the European high patriarchy culture of lisp-ing males who plagiarized all the Greek stories of yor but twisted the "misogyny" out of them --and the plots and points-- by making them tales of innocent girls under siege in the big bad world.

That brings me to another type of matriarchy of the past proponent: the real old fashioned ones (ie pre Gibbons, BD christian aristos [before Darwin]) who say Greeks were "patriarchy replacing the matriarchy of the E Euro amazon barbarians."

BULLSHIT. Yes the Greeks are more patriarchal than later manifestation of CIVILIZATION (_just as the "alpha beta gamma principle" predicts_) but that doesn't evidence that they are more "patriarchal" then the surrounding barbarians. (And I don't believe Sparta was a matriarchy. How are these people defining matriarchy? Answer: lack of "growth" of eg pottery and plays. "This means That" arguments.)

That comes under the heading of the thing I said before "[we see the modern mature civilized world and say it is _reverting_ to the matriarchy and that's why it looks like it does[feminist based]... That is a neat circular logic trick if ever it displayed.]"

Another matriarchy type now. They say: "Top males of our civi defer to dames now, while runts (getting no love) are against wimmins. Therefore since we come from barbarian cultures filled with "alphas" they must have deferred to wimmins too.

Those people have funhouse mirrors for brains.

Suffice to say my "Alpha Beta Gamma principle" untangles all of this.

And those types are "symbology" based: they can't shake the "symbol" ("socio babble signal") of the top male advocating for feminism _now._ And also saying what they do expresses the bench warmer envy based desire to topple the latest "alpha" of our modern world.

And also that type of thinker --along with having a funhouse mirror brain-- is of the brain of "dueling folders." The GOOD folder and the BAD folder. (Note many or MOST humans have this type.) A bad FOR YOU* thing goes in the bad folder and a good FOR YOU* thing goes in the good folder.

[* 'good and bad' are relative: see my fundamentals top right!]

In that brain, ideas wind up getting connected. Ie if being bullied/murdered by an "alpha" back in barbarian times is bad and matriarchy is bad too, well then they are both the same occurrence.

That kind of simple brain doesn't seem to get or care that, that winning bully murderer is not in a matriarchy if after he kills you he fucks his teen niece into submission thus preventing her from psychologically abusing him at will. As far as that bully is concerned life is hunkey dorey --he da man. (And as far as little miss dualistic-ally submissive Briar Rabbit is concerned --trying to top from the bottom and maintain some dignity[despite being a cum filled fuck hole]-- she has a lovely bunch of turnips.)

With that brain type's dueling folder system of thought goes the simple male warrior psychology. If his side wins, it is the "manly side" regardless of what that victory is in the name of. His thinking is "if your side loses, you're the bitches and we're penetrating you. I'm the boy and you're the girl". His brain is simple symbols --like a dog humping the leg. So since the effete ways of western culture keep winning (the colonial race wars or the civil wars), the males think to themselves we're the winners: the thrusters; the "patriarchs"(even though we're fighting to spread the borg's femdom hive). (As I said above I HAVE SAID MOST THINGS THAT NEED SAYING ALREADY!)

GOOD NEWS:
Some netizens invested in these issues lately have said that old STILL SURVIVING civilizations [eg hindus or muslim] developed checks and balances against feminism. _I think there might be something to that._ I have said previously that feminism acts like an inoculation shot; Selection working on the scale of variant hive memes. (Though note I know of no male dominant hives.)

...So on the other side of this anglo diaspora disaster [a young civilization], the survivors --the naturally selected-- in the future will be immune to feminism (just as the modern Italians are inoculated against a racial take over through being severely cliquish). But for now the rest of us... we're doomed. LOL.

DISCLAIMER:
As I have said multiple times in various ways as disclaimers in my solution attempts' posts...

I _do_ understand that we all can’t just live in the hills as uncivilized pre-Roman anti capitalists barbarians who never mature past the 5th-6th grade pecking order level --the lord of the flies' way. But at least we all need to understand what is happening here. And it isn’t that we come from matriarchies that turn into patriarchies by being “growthful” capitalists in democracies.

Not getting that is "is/ ought" fallacy. "I refuse to accept the truth because it ought not to be [or it aint good for me/my ego]." ("Ought not to", according to the latest morality of the day.)

Liberal girls are notorious for "is/ ought" fallacy. And now it seems the anti feminist male is at their level.

When the libs see that the right is embracing the lie that africa or wherever is /was matriarchal, they will change their rap. This happens on all poli issues because the parties orbit each other like pluto and charon do. They live for the fight not the solution... "I will grapple with thee till the end". (Actually liberals already have abandoned matri o past: liberals are quick and conservatives are S...L...O...W.) Politics is that despicable and low.

And also there's this: I DON'T CARE ABOUT AFRICA! It is some kind of weird obsession the anglo/american world has.

As the mule gets dragged and the leashed dog barks...

I know there is a lot here. And I didn't even want to do any of this this month --so it is a little half assed. And when ever I don't write for a while my first foray back is a little off.

Use the arguments you want to internalize around if you want. Or sneak it into welmar's at appropriate threads as response.

My best point I'm trying to make was defining matr vs patri as whether females can mind fuck/cheat with impunity or not --ie the profound psychological stuff that nobody contemplates since we now have a TOTALLY different psychology in the modern west. Get away from that calorie rate, "techno growth" sophistry BS.

I wasn't really thinking of going to sailer steve's blog [plow man WN] or that "greece was patriarchy replacing matri of past" proponent's blog and crossing swords there. I don't have the steam or interest right now. Maybe I will now, since I wrenched this much schpiel out of me.

====

Matriarchy of the Past canard

2010-10-14T14:33:00.108-04:00

This "matriarchy of the past" --and "in all nature"-- is curious pernicious trope.

It use to be part of liberalism's propaganda and now the men's rights retards have picked it up. MRAs ('Men's Rights Activists') simply say matriarchy is bad and that we escape it by becoming capitalists who build "civilization". Meanwhile liberalism wants to return us to a matriarchy of the past by toppling industry thus vectoring in a perpetual Woodstock where the sausage sandwich truck never runs out of chow (nor does the mom-given 20 dollar bill ever vanish) and Hendrix is always coming next and nobody fights over female dalliance --ever dancing en-swoonedly-- nor are they armed (the police would never allow it, silly).

Ahh... The great utopia that is democracy debate. Let the madness begin.

Most people believe a fact is any idea that is believed hard enough.

A curious thing about the religious and the anti religious (ie "atheists") and the "matriarchies of the past" idea is most _religious texts_ say we come from patriarchies--often utopian--made matriarchal by snowballing out of ruralism into urbanism. ("Cast from Eden to the Great Whore Babylon --the city.") ...That is correct. Score one point for ancient religious philosophers trying to figure it all out.

People are not educated, stubborn about it and just plain too retarded to learn properly. (And admittedly what liberalism calls education is none such.)

(Note that religious americans have a belief in constitutional proscriptions or compellings that never existed. And note that they call the new law process "un-american" when creating new laws and amendments is a firm founding point of the culture that their jingoistic patriotism is trying to preserve (through an assortment of cross purposes approaches).)

...On to an attempt to deconstruct matriarchy GIBBERISH. I welcome challenge from "real" relevant proponents --ie book writers-- of Matri o'Past. Preferably publicly. (And wear your name tag: I want posterity to know who they are laughing at.)

================

Attila was possibly poisoned by his latest concubine. Probably true.

BUT

Women always poison, always try to steal inheritance, always instigate competition, are always the desired and always engage in ignoble/ frustrating behavior.

This is a big thing the matriarchy crowd ignores.

Any period the matriarchy-crowd calls patriarchal would have all those thing too. Queen Isabella (Columbus fame ) poisoned her way into a throne; as did Cleopatra (who was _Greek Ptolemy_ --ie civilized); as did Sweden's Christina; and the British throne is littered with these head hunting dames. (There are more both known and unknown to history.)

The difference between Atilla's --supposedly matriarchal-- time and the other civilized --supposedly "patriarchal" -- times is that in Atilla's time these poisoners were called concubines. In the civilized periods these same poisoners were called queens.

The civilized period -- supposedly "patriarchal"-- has all the same female behaviors and penumbra (ie male desire and blindness etc) as the barbarian period --supposedly matriarchal. The difference is that as we leave the barbarian period we no longer see men robust enough to balance the ever occurring female chicanery out.

"Matriarchy of the past" is crackpot ism. Originally spread by liberals and jews. Long since admitted canard (a false report from the bush). It is now a favorite of MRM (Men's Rights Movement) wings.

These MRAs have conflated the idea of females being more naturally valuable than males (and as such the instigators and points of competition) with the females being active controllers/choosers and the males being passive.

================
After Rome fell, there was a return to the pre civilized way in Euro --the "matriarchy of the past"[sarcasm] LOL.

During that temporary non civilized phase, when Brunehilde --a mother of a regent (a baby king on a pillow used as rally standard by the tribal men) -- got uppity (stole power not her's), the Franks (or was it the Spanish Visi) tied her naked body to a wild horse and watched it drag her to death over the coming days. ("Oh, look, there she is now" ...galloping passed along the treeline. LOL.)

...The matriarchy of the past.

======
"Tipa-he was a New Zealand tribal chief that came into contact with English explorers in 1803. He explained to the English that he had several wives, of whom one he killed because she had a troublesome tongue."

Again, the matriarchy of the past. [eye roll]

=================
Male violence scares females beneath a certain sexual-value threshold.

Primatoids are known for “brutish uncivilized” behavior.

Meanwhile, civilization IS male mutual wrist-grabbing daisy chain; then female sex value chicanery increases (untethered now and emboldened); males lose leverage vs females in slippery slope snowball over generations.

e voila: feminism

Took a long time but here we am.

Further, any matriarchy of the past tale was a canard (from late 19th century (jew /goy) wishful thinking BS that grew legs for a while). Long since debunked/or admitted BS. (And don’t read D Amneus: he was not a biologist or anthropologist or anything real. What he was was a divorced father of the first wave in the 60s there [probably rendered insane by break water to his face].)

Ie you should be providing evidence for matriarchies rather than asking me to provide evidence that primitoids are brutes. Also show how primitive males aren't sexually jealous of female game playing/mind fuck/dalliance etc; and how these brute males don't hit girls.

Blacks are not in ghettos now because they are “reverting to matriarchies.” There are hundreds of differences between black ghettos (which are unique to civilization) and black tribes of africa (no less ancient tribes of africa before the euros came there and corrupted them). A glaring difference is that we –-the euros-– curtail black male jealousy and its violence towards females and prop up female headed households through
outside-the-community intervention unique to our western civilization.

(A civilization created because all of you are warped and don’t think clearly at all. Eg: freedom-from-state rhetoric as a tactic for stopping this state that has formed from your freedom rhetoric; also the english language itself is another fine example of warped brains.)

One must be pretty blind to not see this stuff.

You don’t think black tribesmen hit females? You don’t think getting hit dis emboldens fledgling grrlpower?

=============

FYI…

Female humans did not select the males in the past. Just like female bears don’t select their mates; just like female lions and female elephants don’t.

In species like lions, bears and elephants too, oh my –including the early humans– the most violent males are simply pushing the other males out of breeding. The female is not “selecting” the most violent.

females being the catalyst for competition (“fem sex value”) and being the selectors of the winners are two different things.

AS I HAVE EXPLAINED MULTIPLE TIMES.

Then you go “why am the female still be to picking the violence, thenba?”

To understand, think about gambling over teams or horses. The bet-er is not selecting the winner; he is PREDICTING a winner. Same with females in species where there is male violence (eg mammals): the females who know how to spot a winner have done better, but they aren’t necessarily deciding who the winner is. The modern females still posses those “jimmy the greek” (predictor) powers.

——
The sea horse males are not selecting for more violent females. The males, simply being vectors of reproduction (through previous evolution quirk), are a bottle neck/catalyst that causes females to have to compete against each other to breed. Given other prereqs of the sea horse environment (namely that violence-side-effects are not detrimental like they are for say flying birds), that competition is `femana a `femana -–violence. The winner female physically pushes the loser females off the territory that the male was eating on. Ie the seahorse have the same social sexual dynamic as mammals --except for the gender flip quirk. An exception that proves the rule.

In species where the females do select directly –eg flying birds (as opposed to re-terrestrial-ized/grounded birds[where in battle damage is tolerable again])– there is usually less direct male violence. In those female-select-species, the females who desired males who have harder lives in non sexual-combat arenas have out bred their sisters who had different desires(modules).

————
Now that the spreading cancer sore called civilization has gelded the male human (the new “peaceful man”, new for about 4000 years) we are finding that the “jimmy the greek” modules the females have are throwing a monkey wrench into the jew /wasp utopia by compelling the fems into still liking the the old-way fashioned brute male (however nature/ nurture doth form him).

The only way for the profiteers of this “utopia” to deny that is to ignore/censor/ or otherwise muddy up the evidence. Evidence like the fact that female humans like male ‘thuggery’ on reflex desire –and therefore promote it– the same way males like sexy things finger fucking themselves on the vidjyo. (Ie even if other conditionings tell you “that person is no damn good”, you still are enamored anyway.)

————
This BELIEF that females do the picking is a political narrative meant to “flip the script” and make maleness across nature passive in the narrative and females the first person point of view character. Whether this political script flipping is self aware-purposeful or accidental-subconscious conformity to the zeitgeist is irrelevant to the fact that female as selector is a political contrivance.

===============

Sodom and Gomorrah were not "forests of apes." They were CIVILIZATIONS!

Civilization. Ie a dynamic where the previous tribal way’s alpha male (the bestest kid from kid hood) was ousted by lilliputian coup (the ALPHA BETA GAMMA dynamic) and a new social dynamic formed where in the female game playing, frustration inducing powers –that are _always there anyway (but sublimated below the best males)_ –became more powerful, because now there were fewer “naturally” dominant (“warrior type”) males around.

Ie civilization.

Fucking jeez! already!

======================

The couple of colonial outback cults –Utah or early colonial dynamics or proto dixie etc– that re-saddled the female were not western civilization. They were throw backs dependent on geographical distance from western culture.

These patriarchal cults –ie female regulation and arranged marriage– were also isolated geographically like Euro sapiens haven’t been for thousands and thousands of years.

They also had very limited techno and no individualist/predator capitalism or industrialism.

=================
"The meek shall inherit the earth" is a liberal effete civilized anti male notion. It is because of that snowballing liberalism that feminism became _inevitable_.

Words don't make reality; reality makes reality. The reality is white men are wimps; the females INEVITABLY took over because of that.

Chrisendumb is part of the snowball that made white males wimps. Feminists didn't cull back the vikings or the celts --chrisendumb did.

This isn't that hard to understand too. You are simply ignorant of your own history.

People acting masculine in the last few centuries in the outback of america and other colonies is NOT Christianity; it is outbackism. This masculinity was allowed because the runts back in the cities --christians-- needed masculinity to clear the rough frontier. But now that that is done it is business as usual for the white male wimpdom--ie getting rid of masculinity, per civilization's 5000 year old meek shall inherit ideals.

Again this isn't that difficult to understand. You are simply ignorant and only look at what you want (namely words rather than reality and history).

=============================

I’d never seen feminists actually looking at bonobo monkeys as something to emulate until recently and that just blew me away. I’d already used that as an insult, and there they were saying “I wish I could live like a dumb primate with my ‘gina in the wind.”

Bonobos are chimpanzees.

------
It is like this:

Force and matter (like steam and ice --but for analogy only)

Cause and Effect are the motor. Billiard ball bank-shotting on a 3D table (length, width AND height); domino effects... Nothing moves without something previous moving upon it. It gets complicated as branching ricochets-- and ricochets and ricochets-- start building up.)

Hydrogen(one proton) then heavy hydrogen (more neutrons per atom; "isotopes"); then helium(two protons) form.

Then organic matter (carbon and nitrogen).

Natural Selection means different variants form, because of cause and effect; Only some variants convert more energy into more of their conversion trends (at the expense of other trends) --eating and reproduction; the surrounding previous cause and effect [the "environment"] does the selecting of the successful trends. Amoral/unthinking cause and effect decides.

Then viruses and DNA-molecule LIFE. (Viruses are RNA molecules technically not living self replicators. Viruses might come after DNA as variant off of it or before as proto strain OR totally different parallel life trend.)

Then bacteria (no nucleus) (Eg algae)

Then Eukaryote LIFE (good nucleus) (Eg amoeba)

Then fungus

Then plants --first as moss (Lichens --proto moss-- are algae and fungus in symbiosis acting as template for new selection to occur: what was selected was moss. The concept of "scaffolding": eg snake venom(modified saliva made by the snake's genome) which got selected from a niche created by proto-snakes using septic bacterial symbiosis in their mouths --not of the org's genome-- as a hunting tool.)

From another branch of eukaryote life ANIMALS form.

First sponges

Then coral and jelly fish. (Jelly fish are free individualist coral.)

Then worms

Then mollusks

Then arthropods from different worms. (Arthropods are horseshoe crabs; lobster + shrimp; crabs; spiders; insects; milli and centi.)

Then chordats (VERTEBRATES) from different worm strain ("prechorians" ["pre backbone ites"]).

Then fish (first lobe fin, then ray)

Then amphibians from lobe fin type

Then reptiles (turtles and crocs then lizard snakes.

Then mammals.

Then birds from bipedal crocodillian types (along with so called dinos from those bipeds.)

The mammals come from "dimetrodon" reptiles. A Fin-back type with homeothermic tendency (self regulating body heat --marrow in fin bones).

First are "monotremes" mammals (egg laying--eg platypus)

Then pouch having ("marsupials") (Eg kangos)

Then placentals. (womb)

(Mammals make milk which is modified sweat gland oil. ...Babies started living on mamma's body; that started new selection niche: milk and nipples formed. Note that through parallelism other species make "milk" (modified-to-baby-nutrient body effuse).)

First womb are called multi tubers.

Then creodonts: "Pinnipeds and fissipeds" (fins and paws). The pawed are "arctoidates" (dogs and bears) and "aeluroidates" (hyenas and cats). (The finned are the seals and whales/dolphins.)

Then ungulats (hoofed): The perisodactyls(three toes [horse rhinos]) and artiodactyls (two toes [bovide {bulls, goats}, suideans{pigs} cervides{deer}]).

The multi-tubers are insectivors. Anteaters sloths, bats, primates and rodents and rabbits. (From the proto rabbit types come the ungulats.)

The primates are:

lemurs tarsiers

new world monkeys

old world monkeys (langurs, bonnets, recces' maccacs, baboons)

The apes (no tails; revolving shoulder pits--"brachiation"). (Gibbons, orangs, gorrilla, chimps [two flavors], hominids.

The hominids are robust and gracile. From the gracile the homos come. First homos are called habalines then erectines, then sapients.

Man's taxonomic placement:

KINGDOM animal
PHYLUM vertebrate
CLASS mammal (sub class placental)
ORDER Primate
FAMILY Hominid (super family is pongoid--"ape")
GENUS Homo
SPECIES sapiens

Dates are-
14 bill = universe
11 bill = our galaxy (colloquially called "milky way")
5 bill = our solar system
4 bill =life
2 bill = animal (sexually reproducing predators)
500 mill (half a bill) = mollusks/arthrs/verts. Also DIM SEX DEVELOPS AT THIS TIME for upper animals.
350 mill = insects[runty crabs] follow plants on land
300 mill = fish follow insects, to amphibians.
250 = crocs
200 = mammals
150 = birds
60 mill = dinos gone, birds then mammals grow into niches.

8 mill = apes
4 mill = hominids
2.5 mill = homos (feather-boas came later)
1.5 ish = erectines
200 thousand years (2 tenths of a million) = sapients
35 modern sapients
15 - 10 000 = some agriculture and domestication of dogs and bovines.
6000 horse domesticated (mounted aristocracy culls europe)
5000 literacy = civilization
3200 iron and proto monotheism
1500 some euros literate
400 years scot and finns literate
Thursday = jerked-off to interwebs.

MY DATES (and all that above taxo) ARE APPROX --I seem to have forgotten. They change fast anyway; "pardigm shifts". Go read a book-- it won't kill you and jesus won't die. (FACT FINDER ALMANAC BOOKS OR ENCYCLOPEDIAS ARE BEST.)

The only things left to know are
-the development of reproductive systems and dynamics. I have dealt with that extensively over and over.
-how nurture/environment shapes biochemistry along with genes (it aint just genes).
-quantum effect ideas of mine. (Atheists won't like them: they create excuses for an activist god again. He'd still be an asshole, but he would have active agency again too.)

-------
If one is going to use bio arguments in their arguments get them right. Chimps are not monkeys! Pet peeve of mine and many other educated people I'm sure.

I'm not making fun of you or semantically trying to "deconstruct" your point. (1 I don't care about your point; and 2 I agree. I started off by saying "FINE" previously above.)

Technically speaking humans ARE "dumb primates with their 'ginas in the wind."

==============

Bachofen [Matriarchy of Past author] has no evidence. It is all interpretation of gegawds. Change the generation looking at the stuff and the conclusion FUNDAMENTALLY changes.

Meanwhile _nobody_ understands (or includes in their models) that males hit females when they are sexually jealous (or just angry over her antagonistic behavior in general) and that that undermines any potential "matriarchy" before it even gets started.

It takes the caste structure of runts --IE variants from the litter of puppies that can only be kept alive inside the technology built en-closer --ie CIVILIZATION-- to grab the wrists of male sexual-jealously thus allowing female chicanery to get a snowball of leverage going.

You don't think barbarian males --of what ever race-- hit females?

Also this statement of your's exposes your approach...

That doesn’t necessarily imply that mankind evolved from matriarchy; only that during a particularly long, dark period in the ancient past that seemed to be the norm.

...Somebody [bachofen] --who knows nothing about biology --seeing gegawds -- through the relativist lens that has indoctrinated him-- as evidence of matriarchy in no way shape or form "implies that it seemed to be the norm."

Even if he found one, it would not mean it "seemed to be the norm."

Do you think I'm a child?

It doesn’t preclude the possibility that a more civilized human culture existed prior to the Paleolithic Age (and more recent archaeological evidence is suggesting that it did)

That is the most important thing you matriarchy types have said. Why? Because it exposes your mental glitch right there: You don't think that if men are in charge it can be called "uncivilized". Therefore every time you see men in charge some where you call it civilization.

Civilization means literacy. Nothing more. It stated in the near east 5500 years ago as a side effect of population density made possible by 1) that area being a bottle neck out of africa and 2) agriculture techno there (happenstance of location) increasing food supply and thus increasing the amount of surviving villagers.

The implication of literacy is... larger coalitions (since literacy is a poli glue like mutual grooming is for chimps only deluxe) --a slippery slope of bigger groups; then more technology and thus runaway population growth then more techno created and so on. That keeps most bits of flotsam and jetsam that worm out of the womb alive.

This flotsam and jetsam ascending is the thing that grabs the wrists of male violence thus emboldening female chicanery and thus starting that group of humans down a snowballing path of female hyper leverage. That path sees each generation of git males making more and more concessions to the pirouetting females. (Enter the praying mantis dynamic... And it's almost dinner time.)

It is very easy to understand quite frankly.

The central part of his theory is that only AFTER the matriarchy was overthrown and the Neolithic Age inaugurated, could civilization become possible.

Repeating the contention (which you must know I know) does not evidence it.

------
Where is this bachofen? Who is he? Tell him sean maccloud thinks he's is fraud. Tell him --and all his friends-- I'll be here all day.

=========================================

I would hardly call [bachofen's] theories relativistic either;

You don’t know what scientific relativism means.

It means he saw what he wanted to see when he looked at “evidence”. It means a “skewed filter” for processing data. (There are various psych 102 reasons one skews like this: purposeful or accidental/conditioning. I explained this all already!)

(The term “moral relativism” more properly means the universe is unthinking and indifferent and therefor absolute OBJECTIVITY potential becomes possible when analyzing. I understand though that sophists --the ehem “marxists”-- use the fact of the universe’s indifference and our human attempt to be objective in unscrupulous ways to play “jedi mind tricks” with the dumb horde [that'd be you all].)

More recent evidence is showing that Neanderthal man, for example, was far more advanced than previously believed, possing a language (possibly written), were monogamous and had a religious system.

Not germane. (argument drift) And neanderthal were not civilized anyway. (Pre history humans used symbols to convey info. Ie proto literacy yes.)

It could well be that a matriarchial system arose on the collapse of that one—we simply don’t know at this point.

It could well be that after Neanderthal, Martians came and invented earth on a butterfly’s wing of dreams.

_You don’t know how evidence works either._

Ie you can’t just fill in the unseen gaps with what ever you want, denying the other shapes of the puzzle pieces we already have. (That’s what feminists did to invent this Matr o’Past myth you’re spreading now.) A puzzle piece we have is: MALES HIT FEMALES UNLESS SOME FORCE PREVENTS THEM! (Western culture/feminists / ”marxists”[ehem] censored that –when convenient for them to– and that has skewed your lens.)

That sexual jealousy and aggression is a very relevant piece that tells us what the unknown piece looks like.

(I imagine you don’t put boxed puzzles together well too.)

And if we “simply don’t know at this point”, why did you assert originally that we come from matriarchies? Again you must think me a child in your church, given your tactics.

You can’t deny that every extant matriarchy in the world today has never progressed much further than the Old Stone Age,

I’m not denying that _non_ Western culture is technologically and therefore socially stagnant (or that they lose battles to western colonial diaspora); but I deny that these other cultures are matriarchies. You have a circular trick you’re trying there. (It is very fatiguing and that is why you types think you win arguments: Others abandon the field because they can sense you are loopy as bat shit.)

I deny matriarchies of the bush were /are there at all.

I see another mental glitch you types have. “Progress” as synonym for “patriarchy”.

I assume strongly “victory” too is a synonym for “patriarchy” in your types’ heads; as in “victory over the dirty savage.” …So when our western female hyper-leverage hive of complexity beats up the the simpler tribes of male warriors –who en harem females young and hit them– that makes us the patriarchs and them the matriarchs in your heads. [eye roll]

When males control females that is when stagnation occurs, since techno growth –what you term “progress” –is the side effect of human males competing (in their human techno-antler way) to win females. The more unsure the male position regarding the female the more he keeps working so as to keep up with boopsy pirouetting before him just out of ‘true’ reach. Tribes have such slow progress specifically because the males are content _given their control over females._ My evidence would be of course: Islam, Mormons, Amish, any “non Romanized” tribe. Little progress and little* female leverage. Not a coincidence. (*females always have some leverage –they aint cardboard fuckboxes [darn!]–and _fem sex value_ is always the catalyst for the competition; but being the catalyst and being in control are not the same thing.)

(There are various reasons why this male control was maintained in tribes: lack of plentiful food (females dependent/ had to obey more); less crafty-political brains in the males thus slowing the cycle of AlphaBetaGamma coups. (ABG coup snowball ousts authority/masculinity/adulthood thus vectoring in female leverage.)

In civilization the fems have the hyper leverage they do (remaining ever one step ahead of propriety demand thus triggering more male competition), because a social dynamic of snowballing runt-male ascendancy made possible by technology growth eventually pulled males in total under the female “high water” mark. AS I EXPLAINED MANY MANY TIMES!

Technology is men’s antlers of competition piling up and thus creating a new environment. An “environment is a “selection pressure”. (I suspect strongly your ilk does NOT understand natural selection or incorporate it into your models as the base point. Natural selection means different baby variants form in a litter; Only some of those puppy variants live eat and breed, with the environment doing the selecting.) The new environment created by man’s hand selects for a new breed(of gracile-male types); that breed has hyper female leverage, thus morphing man from a male leverage species (where males fight directly over fem sex value[think bears]) into a female leverage species (where females pick the males and dismiss the unchosen who then 'try' harder thus creating the "growth" [think bowerbirds]).

[This is Not rocket science people. Well actually it is a little _more_ complicated than rocket science; indeed that is why 99.999 percent of people don't get it --even rocket scientists... Rocket scientist have simple hyper brains: they don't like when things get complexified to muddy and they hate people-thick equations for that reason. Can't say I blame them.]

There are no matriarchies… except for this one: western culture (and its biblical precursors [Babylon Sodom Gomorrah]) — note that matriarchy is synonymous WITH CIVILIZATION.

An interesting mental glitch you types have is you observe the female hyper-leverage-ways of an advanced mature civilization (like for example modern mature western culture) and then assert that it must be reverting to a matriarchy and that’s why it looks like it does. (?!) That’s a neat circular reasoning trick you got there.

And civilization means much more than mere literacy, it means organization and progress as well.

Civilization is as I explained previously. GO READ IT AGAIN. You are uneducated and too dumb to care.

Who defined civi for you? They were wrong. Have you ever actually read a history book? (Not a “joe’s opinion about some period/event in history” book; A history, history book.) Try the Hammond atlas of history or penguin atlases of history. While they don’t specifically deal with matriarchy patriarchy issues(good thing since they aren’t trying to) they do eloquently demonstrate that civ comes from the near east stored as literate record starting around 5500 years ago(eg Sumeria) and spreads up “littorals”(coast line lush spots) through cultural and genetic “diffusion”. There is a reason we have the word “prehistory”, you know (it means “non literate record of peoples”).

If organization and progress is the definition of civilization then Am Indians and Neanderthal were civilized too. Any tribe would be called civilized for they were all “organized”* and had progress.

(*organized here is nonsense term since everything in the universe is organized.)

(A lion pride is organized; and antlers “progress” every season.)

1) “Culture” means technological survival strategies(eg a pointed stick) _passed on by language._

2) “Civilization” means culture of diverse specialists in denser populations passed on by written narrative; Cities.

Civilization is as I explained previously. GO READ IT AGAIN.

There have been uncivilized male-dominated societies, yes, but civilization is never possible under female-dominated ones.

More circular contention on your part.

Civilization has always been similar to what we have now: males do the work top and bottom (in triangle shape caste) and the females exert profound influence. (As with most things “over the long haul” there are ebbs and flows as the pendulum swings.) Our modern Civi has hit a critical mass/straw on camel’s back recently (culmination of underlying snowball of slippery slope techno growth and AlphaBetaGamma coups) and now we have an intense/direct female controlled hive. In the past when this occurred, the civi imploded. But now the techno snowball is causing civi to hit a kind of auto pilot. Ie it –civ– doesn’t care whether the males en masse dislike it and ‘shrug’ or not now; it doesn’t need them anymore. [My first ever post to the 'net back in ca97 grappled with that techno-snowball-autopilot-ascending thing: "E=boybad girlgood squared". Wish I felt like finding that.]

Limit female control and males simply sit around and fuck their owned nieces –cum child brides– all day –like what happens in a tribe. (After the belly is full at any rate.)

—–
As I said many times, I don’t like using that “matriarchy patriarchy” jazz, for it is all made up definitions that tautologically spin per the relativism of the speaker.

Bachofen was a crackpot. Citing a crackpot doesn’t make either of you less ridiculous. Academia loves the exercise of citation but it doesn’t make anything said more valid; especially in the “soft subjects” which are opinion based.

——
You have a very simple mind. Childlike in its pattern differentiation actually. And your mind is also tangled. “ENGLISHMUN.”

Do you know your IQ?

—–
Have you ever seen fight club? That question is not as silly as it sounds. (Forget that it debateably has the 2nd best ending in motion picture history, after the first Planet of the Apes) It traces all of this without really saying any of it. Movies are good for the simple. And everyone else too.

If you were more intelligent, I would ask if you know what a bowerbird is.

—–
Your major problem is definitions:

You have mis defined civilization and culture.

You have conflated the word progress (and victory) with the word patriarchy, undeservedly, circularly.

I suspect also your ilk believes a “civilization” comes from North West Europe.

You are very uneducated and too slow witted to care about that before you speak.

And I see you totally absolutely ignored my earlier statement(s) about male sexual jealousy and its violence. That ignoring –sometimes with extreme prejudice –is the key notorious trick of the matriarchy of the past crowd. (The runts civilization breeds for –be they called liberals or conservatives– simply can’t get there minds around the idea that men used to be able to start fights with wimmins and actually WIN them.)

Don’t bother responding to me unless you parry successfully my “male sexual VIOLENCE trumps incipient matriarchy” statement. You are in check[mate]. You and your entire belief –times an entire failed culture– can’t just whistle at the ceiling and pretend that aint so…

============================

HYPERGAMY

I just spent a week explaining this multiple times. You can't learn. That's why you did badly in childhood.

Male humans until very recently were killing each other off and the winners were then fucking the females. The vikings or shogun ates or indian brave or who evers were not simply displaying and then waiting for a nod from a female.

Again up until recently, the roosters were killing each other off. The winner claimed the hen house. The hen couldn't "choose" the dead one.

=============

I find a lot of the gender science which male activists use to demonstrate their points is actually embraced feminist lies (canards) spread successfully by the feminist marxist (ie jew instigated) matriarchy.

Like the human 'matriarchy of the past' thing. It was a bullshit just so story created by liberals basically to empower females and now male rights types use that vocab to try and make their points. FYI we do not come from matriarchies --unless one considers harems of young girls boinked doggy style by jealous killing males, where getting caught at infidelity could be fatal and where there were strict divisions between male created tool kits to be matriarchy.

==========

Hypergamy is overused.

Most evo psych is literally half assed but it is NOT wrong per se. It lacks big picture root cause objectivity (the stuff I do) and therefore its principles become just-so stories when challenged: they can only fit as-they are-explained when looked at from certain angles. But the scenario itself is usually valid. Eg females do cheat; and females do pit males into arenas through their troubling behavior.

--------------

More on hypergamy...

Up until recently human males were killing each other quite viciously, negating female choice; thus negating hypergamy as used by most activists. This male vs male culling is not that hard to understand, so I don't know why people --all over-- are ignoring it. (Actually I do: "Willful blindness about a paradigm crushing factoid.")

But the principle that all males don't breed specifically because of female value is valid. Say 40-60% of both genders don't make it through because of disease and food pressures (either getting or becoming) and another 60 percent of the left over males specifically don't breed or, once, just plain died outright.

[For species where the female picks (eg birds), there is something called the "handicap principle". It is too complicated for you all (being as many don't understand simple cause and effect and natural selection principles). So I'll wait on that.

For species where the males pick, there is male vs male direct combat over female value.

I explained all of that last month. Go to my recent blog entries.]

Note that lions are a male vs male combat over females type. But note that a female lion picks tan fur and brunette mane males when given a choice (by pesky anti-ginger human academics) more than other colors. Yet male lions are fighting to the brutal death thus negating female choice absolutely. What possibly, even probably, is happening there, is the female variants who got horny for would be winners (of those male vs male duals in that niche) have done better than female variants who got horny for the losers.

These prediction-making modules in the females can be called `gina tinglers.

The females who have picked right (ie got horny for the males that unknowingly-to-the-fem-gina-tingle would win) have some kind of edge over the female variants who picked wrong (even though those wrong-picking females wind up getting impregnated by the real winner males anyway). Since most females are descended from those who picked right, females generally get horny when they see a usually-the-winner brunette male --even though _females themselves are not choosing who the winner is going to be_.

So jump to the human west. Female humans have recently --over the last few centuries and now especially in the last few decades-- been given absolute pick and dismiss power; Humans have slipped into a bird like dynamic with the female as the chooser. (This happened because of the alpha beta gamma stuff between the males I keep explaining. [Do you see why competition is bad--especially if we don't eliminate the losers? You all better figure this out soon.])

Note that humans come from a situation where the males were fighting each other over the females with the females being boinked by the winners. (The male human competition was often direct combat but also inventiveness which culls attritionally in between the combat culls. Either way the females were not engaged in pick and dismiss since the males handled a lot of that male vs male cull themselves.) Just like with the lions, the females who predicted a winner got better placement in the wife and concubine pecking order --thus benefiting her kids and therefore passing on more successfully her pick-the-winner-correctly-genes which created her horny-for-the-predicted-winner desire.

(Again to be clear, human females over the long haul have been fucked by the winners of the _males vs males_ fighting. But the female variants that have modules(chemical chain reactions) which compel them to get horny for the male-type that coincidentally wins the male vs male fighting have done better themselves.)

So what we are seeing in the bar or high school or frat house etc is the female human getting horny for a certain male type/display on instinct (even though humans don't come from a species where the females were picking and dismissing like birds).

Females don't like the would-be losers, with the winner females (of the female battles over self esteem and worse now) laying dibs on would-be better males. That scene right there (at da club) is called "hypergamy".

Golly gee we are not equal after all.

=============
Females did not necessarily "pick" Genghis Khan more often. He simply killed more men and therefore claimed more females.

BTW this is not a theory or up for debate.

It is only very recently that 'we' 'let' females pick and dismiss like many birds do.

Dueling between male humans was only outlawed in the 1800s.

The males who win the male vs male battles don't just go in the corner and sulk when a female variant picks a different male.

Duh.

Male humans don't have broad shoulders or masculine forearms and etc 'cause female humans like those traits. The males who won the male-verse-male duels simply had those traits.

This is easy to understand stuff.

So why don't you all --the mens rights movt for decades-- understand it?...

I actually know the answer:

Number one you are dumb: meaning you lack memory speed and storage in childhood and therefore you have missed core vocabulary. Without this core your 'folder system' that sorts new incoming info is warped.

But two, more importantly, you are afraid... Nerds(which you are) are lacking in masculinity. Accepting that we come from a species [meaning humans] where masculinity was life and death relevant is a logic path you can't allow yourselves to start down, for its implications will depress you (being as you're runts).

================

Listen, you types who make the bio argument you are trying to make should say it this way:

"Female sexual value _unwittingly selected_ for males who [...then your point]."

Then you continue adding:

"Fem sex value can mean _'male vs male cull'_ through the the bottle neck of eternity (ie fem sex value) or _'female pick or ignore'_ as the way males get through the bottle neck of eternity. The "pick or ignore" dynamic can snowball into praying mantis/black widow dynamics."

I explained this all fairly well months ago. Those points made are entered as "More pearls."

Very good stuff there. People who do this gender politics stuff should learn what I say. (Posterity certainly will.) No shit.

=========================

Sean MacCloud wrote:

Female lions don’t pick the males. Male lions fight each other to the death and the winners fuck the females regardless of who boopsy liked.

Female bears don’t pick the males. Male bears fight each other to the death and the winners fuck the females regardless of who boopsy liked.

nicor wrote:

You should read some biology. You would learn that females in many primate species (including all apes) have evolved counterstrategies that allow them to choose the male they prefer in many circumstances. Female choice has always existed and has probably played a significant role in shaping humanity, including its most unsavory members like psychopaths.

It's an endless duel between males and females who each try to control reproduction. Today, human females - in western countries at least - clearly have the upper hand. We shouldn't be too surprised if the most violent types are favorably selected.

MacCloud:

First, most ethologcial science conjured in the 20th century is political bullshit published by jews and created by feminists. (Anglo American/christian ignorance and belligerence has guaranteed that fact. Ie anglo american white males are some of the least informed people in the history of politics; they are certainly not enlightened. And because of that they fought and keep fighting for their enemies.)

The fems and jews publish what they do for self empowerment reasons and to brainwash. The trickle down side effect of that is the next wave of people who don't think they are feminists or marxists--even those who actively fight the fems and marxists-- still use the convoluted paradigms(published by fems/jews) as the basis for their ideas. Much evo psych and men's rights (eg Danial Amnaeus) stuff is an example of that.

Number two YES. I did not mean to say that there is not hella complexity in the give and take of it all. THAT IS THE MAIN REASON I NEVER SUBSCRIBE TO THAT MATRIARCHY PATRIARCHY STUFF; There is too much give and take between genders. I am very much aware of that intellectually.

But when someone says that Genghis khan did all the breeding he did because he was picked by the females it denotes such ignorance of reality (for what ever reason), that there is little reason, for the person trying to dispel such ignorance, to get into complex subtitles(that you brought up) on his first pass at educating.

Same with viking raiders now I see. THE MALES ARE KILLING EACH OTHER! (And enslaving each other.) FEMALE CHOICE IS NEGATED BY THAT. HOW BLIND CAN SOMEONE BE WHEN HE DOESN'T SEE THE AXE CLEAVING BIZERKER? (DUH!!!) The fact that there are complex bobbings and weavings between the genders --made even more complicated by human dynasty tendency [child inheritance of rank(`cause humans have that kind of memory capacity)]-- is not challenged by me. Your blindness is.

First principles need to be established first...

.Fem sexual value. (sperm to egg ratio.)

It manifests in two ways--

-males fight or

-fem pick ('fem pick' sometimes manifest into males-as-direct-food-for females.)

That is underpinned first by a pre requisite: dim sex is an emasculation battle between hermaphrodites. Mature stunting the immature. That leads to male and female vertebrates. (Though note that gender formed multiple times in different strains (eg plants) --just like eyes did and other traits. Note in one-celled asexual(cloning) pond scum, gender-specialist reproduction formed long before the asexual multicellular animals (from which verts come) did. This is called parallelism.)

----------------------

So begin at the beginning...

[God stood and said "let their be energy conversion effected by entropy". He looked and said that it was good. ...And then went back to furiously masturbating to the internet.]

.Energy conversion/conservation

.Cause and effect (domino effect/ billiard ball bankshots forever rippling out, chain reaction after chain reaction forever...)

.Natural selection. (Natural selection model is for inorganic reality too. ["organic" is carbon and nitrogen whether in DNA strands or not.] Note that all energy conversion trends don't equally convert: some convert and some are absorbed as part of other energy paths. [...Almost at Consilience there {ignore that: over your heads}.])

.Life. (Specifically carbon and nitrogen cause and effect natural selection trends.)

[[[[

-photosynth life.

-animals (Eats other life. Ie eats carbo and nitro already arranged by other trends into DNA specific chemicals.)

-predator animals (Eats other animals.)

-moving predators (Eg jelly fish and worms, mollusks, arthropods, vertebrates.)

(Note moving preds formed in one celled photosynthesizing pond scum. Then later moving predation formed again from non self-moving multi-cellular organisms. This is called parallelism {apparently the universe can only do a finite amount of things}.)

]]]]

.A sexual (cloning and sometimes some recombining /repairing.)

.hermaphroditic (different members share reproductive material. Some can "fuck themselves" too--so some cloning along with the recombining.)

.dimorphic (Boy and girl. Dim sex is an emasculation battle between hermaphrodites. Mature stunting the immature; That led to male and female vertebrates.)

(Note that gender formed multiple times in different grand strains (eg plants) --just like eyes did and other traits. Note that in one-celled asexual(cloning) pond scum, gender-specialist reproduction formed. But then later in multi-cellular animals, hermaphroditic and then dimorphic sex formed again (from which vertebrates come). This is called parallelism.)

.Fem sexual value. (sperm to egg ratio.)

It manifests in two ways--

-males fight or

-fem pick ('fem pick' sometimes _manifest into males-as-direct-food-for females_.)

----------------

Adding complexity to that when _no one even gets the fundamentals_ in simple form would be sophistry. Why would I do that to myself?

Now what you have posted to me would come after my above-listed chronological-model as a note to be aware of complexity. Specifically say something about how females of group species[eg primates] sometimes conspire with some underling male cliques more than other ones, with the female-supported cliques sometimes winning their alpha beta gamma coups through her help; or how some females engage in more 'dangerous liaison' than other dames. (The stuff you tried to say would be generally good here.)

But then even that note further needs to be caveated by the 'epistemological warning' about the publishing 'conspiracies' that snowball under any given period's zeitgeist. (Eg this twisted feminist zeitgeist --which american conservatives fight arduously to maintain because they are that confused.)

But one doesn't start inside complexity --perched on his own little twig in the tree of existence--and work his way back through the tree. One tries to step outside of the whole twisted mess --ignoring the complexity and dismissing with prejudice the canards-- so as to see the roots of the tree, then the trunk of the tree, then the main branches and lastly his little twig in it all.

Done right, each new offshoot logically fits into the previous factoid.

When you guys focus on females as cosmic choosers you are ignoring, willfully, the male vs male murder sprees which destroy her choice. But yes it is still 'fem sexual value' as the 'cosmic' catalyst for the male redundancy.

-----------------------

Despite my long post "challenging" you, I agree with what you said above. I already understood it. But as for a root principle, can it really be used as the axiomatic paradigm through which new info is filtered and weighed?

And also I do think that it is a particular spin of ethology (animal/human behavior) that most have imbibed, created by feminists (all culture not just wimmins depts) which is a one sided heavy politicization of gender science, motivated by wishful thinking empowerment desire. (Libs/feminists make bio arguments such that males are passive outsiders of the narrative and females are active 1st person. Relativism is a common feature of science history.)

I have a tendency to dismiss it all out of hand without opening it, for I know from where it comes (and none of that place good, fair or honest.) I don't believe back in the "bad old days" of "patriarchal science" that males ignored female shenanigans in their ethological models. It is just now in these times --under the modern religious citadel of revisionist leftist (who chrisendumb fights for every inch of the way)-- that those fem shenanigans are hyped up and spun as positives for fem empowerment reasons and brainwash-the-males reasons. And it has worked.

Early pro fem would have denounced "patriarchal" scientists who witnessed female shenanigans in Nature; profem would have called them misogynists and denounced and dismissed their findings. But now that the left has taken over it spins the observed fem shenanigans into positives and trumpets them as empowerment (while ignoring masculine patterns in nature).

This is typical way of the left in most situations.

[Observe other examples of left revision taking over society...

Observe nature-nurture sophistry.

The determinists don't ignore environmental --"nuture"-- contingency as shaper of chemistry(ie behavior). But to hear the left revisionists that took over our society speak you would think that there is a dichotomy between nature and nurture. But that is purely a construct of the left for propaganda reasons. Liberals are far more in denial of "nature" than "patriarchal science" is in denial of "nurture".]

==================
Civilization is not a patriarchy reacting to/controlling the natural matriarchy. No way.

I don't know where everyone got that matriarchy-of-the-past canard and why it stuck. But it's here in your heads and it is a pernicious fallacy, putting you --the embracers of that bizarre canard-- at cross purposes when it comes to finding a solution to this human matriarchy _which is peculiar TO civilization_.

=========================
Men become shamans (clever outsiders etc) because they failed at being other things. The human default is to be in the mainstream group and conform(mindlessly). If one CAN'T do that (unhealthy or bad luck etc, usu in childhood), one finds himself on the outside looking in; some of those outsiders become great thinkers and some become crackpots. (FYI, low culture tough guys of an underground are not actually outsiders.)

===============
We don't come from matriarchies. Nr1 I do not believe the black or oceanic tribes that are used as examples of matriarchy are actually matriarchal. And 2 if they are they are local freaky variation culdesacs(sp)[court avenues] off the classic (pre civilized) sapient social sexual dynamic.

You just said yourself above there have been times when wimmins Were the controlled resources.

These times were in the early dark ages --which was a return to barbarism --ie not civilized.

(FYI to all: Female sexual value being the catalyst for competition is not the same as them controlling the competition or being the the direct pickers of the winners.)

=============
We do not come from matriarchies made patriarchal by Christianity.

(Dumb people should not be allowed to talk in the future, for the smart people do not have the energy to keep saying the same things over and over.)

Christianity --or the tech snowball in general-- is the snowballing weakness in men that allowed female "instinctual inherent greed etc, etc, etc" to ascend. It is not that men just all of sudden got weak. It is that christianity is dysgenic weakness accruing like interest/snowballing; Eventually it hit critical mass inevitably.

It is very very very fascinating that men don't get that.

I know the reason they don't. Weakness plus relativism. Weak men can't envision a world where strength once trumped.

==============
You have a nonsense just-so spin of history.

We are supposed to believe that the runt monks got rid of the barbarians on behalf of men and this some how hurt wimmin. This despite the fact that the liberal feminist culture --the west-- is exclusively the the outgrowth of the christian culture.

Your underpinning argument whether you know it or not is cultural-blank slate OR "matriarchy of the past". To say that barbarians had a pro female culture while runt monks of civilization vectored a pro male culture is a bizarre misreading of reality.

"Matriarchy of the Past" is an especially egregious misreading by liberals when one factors in that liberals are the ones who purport to understand --and use all the time as part of their policy initiatives --psychobabble where in we are told that eg Gilligan's Maryanne is -- and similar characters are-- causing girls to be underachievers at NASA. But then we are suppose to ignore the psychobabble implications of primitive warrior culture --_where men kill each other with swords on mastered horses based on whose wimpy (feminine).

Why is one "cultural symbol package" affecting "girl power" but the other not?

Because it (Matriarchy of Past and its growth: LIBERALISM'S anti christendumb politic) is all just-so narrative used for (unwitting) indoctrination.

And you are the indoctrinated.*

Liberals try to get rid of christendum and capitalism the way a down syndrome renal-failure patient tries to un plug his dialysis. If he succeeds he is dead.

-----------
This is all made possible by democracy, which is the inevitable side effect of the way capitalism --and capitalism's techno too-- organizes male competition (ie non fatal).

How ever you'll do well. You have an added advantage over conservatives since your indoctrinated tropes have already long since taken hold of the Pavlovian horde.

------
*There are various reasons for why your ilk took to this indoctrination first. For one thing you are runt who needs profem in order to have a raison d tre as part of your tactic for getting rid of non runts who scare you and marginalize you reproductively. You are not aware of this though.

Runt
leads to envy/reactionary-ism
leads to attacking perceived betters (to take the piss out)
leads to sophistry and tautology arguments conjured
leads to being exposed as sophist
leads to counter attack coming as appeal to popularity [demagoguery](ie "my challenger's ideas are incorrect _because_ they are bad for you the people; so give me power and I will protect you from bad (though correct) ideas through simply replacing those correct ideas outright with lies")
leads to intellect retreating from popularity
leads to extinction of the neo cortex.

This has been snowballing since probably the cave painting shaman days (where perception spiked up) but it has really ramped up recently (part of alpha beta gamma principle).

==========

I totally agree with arranged marriages and regulated females. BUT I wouldn’t call that western civilization as it has manifested in much of Western zones for over 1000 years and all western zones in the last say 300-500 years.

_______________
===============

Think back to the example of the herd, where the bull breeds the lot of females. Is it entirely that the bull gets to breed because he is the strongest and most aggressive of all the males… or is it that the females choose; the bull because he has displayed the traits necessary for them to choose him as the alpha? The bull doesn’t fight the females and overpower them – he fights other males to put on a show for the females so they will accept him as their mating choice.

Incorrect matriarchy silliness. The female bovines etc are going to go where the eats are. The males then are "ACTIVELY" fighting over those plots. If the female goes to a loser male she "likes" the stronger male will simply pursue her and bully that other male away, until she tires and he mounts her. (Also she stops being on the productive territory --where the eats are-- for her and her kid _thus dying out.)

You are making the male the passive one in the story line for an assortment of psychological reasons specific to modern western male humans.

It is called 'relativism'. Seeing what you have been conditioned to see when looking at new things. It is well known and explained.

The jews have long since created and published "studies" which "deconstructed" relativism when it was in their interests to do so. Ie they explained how society's pre conceived notions were coloring even high table --supposedly objective-- studies and conclusions about ...jewish political allies(and jews). But now that the "worm has turned" [ie feminism is the prejudice of the day], the jewish activist scientists and their studies demonstrating how indoctrination and relativism prejudices lenses are cricket quiet.

There are two kinds of relativism. Purposeful and accidental.

Steven Jay Gould [jew, hahrvihd] with his "male barnacles are just some reproductive cells immobile inside the female barnacle's reproductive tract". Very accurate but you can hear the "nyah nyah" in the statement (and study). Purposeful politically motivated relativism, a`la psychological warfare against the dumb suggestible goy... er um I mean sheep.

The other kind is your kind above. Pre conditioning as filter for interpreting new data.

[Not to mention your argument above in itself is tangled. Typical of tortured kaleidoscope arguments trying to hammer those square pegs into round holes. This is similar to political arguments where in we conform to Republican tent BULLSHIT saying in order to stop liberalism we have embrace more underpinnings of liberalism and attack conservative cultures elsewhere... Let the tortured peg hammering begin.]

-------------
The big take home part in herd studies is not the matriarchy cockeyed nonsense. But rather it's more insight into the universe's emergent-multi cellularism and 1st plane pressures trumping sexual plane -- 2nd plane-- pressures.

[Note that I don't use "imperatives" but rather I say "planes" of selection. "Imperatives" is "physician doing harm" talk. A) It implies robot action on the part of the creature being selected and B) implies that if some creatures don't live or breed then the whole natural selection model is wrong. It is confusing creationists and other dunces. I don't use "imperatives" for the same reason I don't use "convergence", preferring the more accurate "parallelism" when eg talking of 'sharks and dolphins' or 'termites and ants'.]

One...

The herd is type of cell seen from the big picture, with the females and calves as the nucleus, the winner males as a layer right around that and then the beaten wounded males as the _skin_ around the breeding core. That limping skin will be the first thing picked by predators --a protective layer around the breeding core.

Two...

The 1st plane pressure for the herd is "lottery of death against the predators". In that life strategy, males have been selected to have modules that make them wound the vanquished rather than pursuing them and killing them outright. (As said, the wounded males will be 1st-choice food for the predators thus protecting the big winner(s). And that reality right there is the selection pressure itself selecting for the fight-to-the maim module.)

The second plane pressure is the standard reproduction.

Bovine sexual dynamic (ie "2nd plane" competition) is male vs male direct combat --"ACTIVE"-- over fem sex value. [The other sexual dynamic is the flying bird's "male vs male displayer" with female as trump card chooser.]

(The modern Human western culture high school hallway and niteclub' sexual dynamic is the birdlike "passive" male dis player with the female as trump card. This is recent human occurrence. This female-as-chooser/male-as-passive has been snowballing along --ups and downs but always a general trend-- for millenia but culminated recently. Note about a century and a half ago male vs male dueling was officially outlawed for Euros (a little later for other indocrinates). That _modern_ hallway and niteclub dynamic is probably the key thing that has prejudiced and conditioned you and created your relativism.)

Because of the merging between the BOVINES' specific 1st plane and 2nd plan selection, the modules that have gotten selected in herds for males are the "fight to the maim" ones. Note wild bull horns are fat and curved in, while female horns are thin pointy and curve forward and down. The female's were selected by predation, while the males were selected --as priority-- by male vs male combat; but combat in a "fight to the maim" breed where a lottery of numbers is the 1st plane pressure.

...It is "immoral" in the herd to kill... ("thou shall not kill.")

That gives insight into our own morals and from where they come. [Prerequisite: there is no such thing as freewill or any of that. You just think there is for some profound bio-efficient reason.]

===============

"Patriarchy will return."

You are wrong unfortunately. Meaning if feminism is able to change male-ness itself biologically, patriarchy will not be able return because their will be no more patriarchy at the biochemical level remaining.

...The kennel will never experience a "return to the wolf", if by the time the dog's coup to over through authority occurs there are nothing but male chihuahua and female dobermans left.

This "return-to patriarchy-being-impossible-if-the-patri-bio-chemcials-are bred-away" thing is why I say we need real solutions NOW to stop these trends. All that capitalist democracy and 'freedom from government' NONSENSE is NOT stopping the anti patriarchy trend. IT IS THE TREND!

And we still haven't defined patriarchy in the west. Is it when little Timmy has a collection of penthouse mags under the bed, as feminist have said? Is it when Jewish liberals running Madison Avenue create soap commercials showing pretty girls washing their faces joyously/orgasmically, as feminism has said? Is it when a man has to pay a wimmins for sex, as feminists have said?

===============
Do you understand _sean maccloud's_ "alpha beta gamma principle"? Not that "alpha beta omega at da club" stuff. But rather my original "caste [ie biological disposition/compulsion] coups over history" thing?

...Since we do not come from matriarchies made patriarchal by civilization, how did this matriarchy we live in now happen?...

Did the females change their chemistries? Through what mechanism did they? Did the males change theirs?

Ah... There's the fulcrum...

Alpha beta gamma [underling coup] snowball changing male chemistry, ultimately making the males the "weaker" gender in the "cuttlefish [hermaphrodite] aquarium experiment".

I believe nurture syndromes[diet etc and social "signals" rippling through the group] are changing our --boy and girl-- chemistries too through their _complicated_ processes. But that contingency (billiard ball collision entering the equation) was vectored in by the coups.

==========

"Female children are not born with any sense of morality and must have it pounded into their heads from birth by the Patriarchy with religions used to reinforce morality. Otherwise, females will quickly revert to their primitive instincts and we destroy the civilisation created by men and return to the primitive matriarchy. We're seeing that today already."

females have instincts to be "game players" on the plane of reproduction. That is true. (This fact will be denied and then at other times applauded, for various reasons.)

That is bad for men.

And children will be indoctrinated with the prevailing morals of the day one way or another. That is true. (If not `these-a morals imposed by group A than `those-a morals imposed by group B.)

BUT...

We don't come from 'matriarchies made patriarchal by civilization'. That is totally backwards.

We come from warrior dynamics where much of the female instinctual "reproductive game playing" was balanced out by the robust, primitive male aggression.

None of that is hard to understand. Why it isn't more readily understood... Only the Shadow knows...
=========

Why "small govt" / "anti stateism" won't work

2010-10-13T19:54:00.016-04:00

Any attempt to maintain a limited government would snowball into bigger govt again, because:

A- the human desire/tendency to like protectionism from the political stump (especially in two party system where it is competing with go-it-alone-ism). (That was true even before female enfranchisement; now... forget it.)

Advanced techno society simply increases protectionism desire by keeping alive more NEW types; they desire and NEED protection(ism) (from the old / natural/ barbarian ways).

B- Only when the tribe is fighting other (or hunting) will better men be tolerated. Since conservatives can be seen as an echo of betters, they will always lose in time of peace and plenty due to man's _coup d eta INSTINCT._

1 people psychologically like protectionism
+2 people don't like top dogs
= Repubs always lose

That is multiplied by the fact that what we embrace as conservatism in the West is actually the backbone of liberalism:

Western "conservatism" both allows and _promotes as noble_ rebellion from underlings.

Western conservatism also is industrialism which inherently does NOT preserve the old ways. Rather it squashes them as its advertisement.

The "I create Industry" as top dog display ironically creates the plenty that allows people's inherent fear of top dogs to bubble to the surface.

And as said, industry is also breeding for new types that need new social customizations.

Then there is jebus cult which is thick with infantiles and retards-- ie underlings by nature. They really don't know what "the sides" are, being retarded. They would never tolerate a truly conservative world --which is most unjesus like-- being scared infantiles.

Western conservatism --capitalism and Christianity -- is at cross purposes with itself. This psychological knot developed over the long haul and is now a "non self aware" --ie not seen or grappled with-- expression.

Conservatives will always lose. So if one wants to stop feminism or race replacement (the only REAL/true issues of the day) new strategies and tactics need to be figured out. But since conservatives are locked in their non-self-aware knot of "useful idiocy" this won't happen. (Being useful idiots for the larger liberal zeitgeist--going on multiple centuries now-- seems to be the only thing conservatives want to conserve.)

Therefore the only thing left is to pull this whole breed down and let other try it all again.

=========

[Why isn't anything being said about soltuons? Why is just endless talk about how bad wimmins are?]

Well as I have said multiple times, the core goal of males is to keep other males from having power. And since civilization breeds for runt males, what is deemed power is any male with a backbone at all.

Now since it will take more than a little backbone to stop feminism... Once a man stands up with real solutions --and trust me: those solutions will wreak with backbone-- the other males will ignore or if necessary actively fight those solutions. We've seen this time and time again.

So what we get instead is a bunch of runts at sites whining but having no intention of allowing real solutions (tm) to germinate

_________________
==============

Eu and dys are relative.

Breeding always is happening; and... Once man is in charge of his own environment --his selection niche-- once he creates laws and the idea of crime and punishment etc-- he is a "genicist". It is just a question of what 'strain' he will breed for and whether or not he will be self aware of this while it happens. (And whether the end result will be called eu or dys when looked at by whatever prevailing rule set/ morality is in charge of the pen at the time.)

Eu- or dis- genics always happens one way or another.

Environmental syndromes (lead in water, mother/womb issues etc) just complexify all that and demand even more micro managing of the society than simple "Eugenics".

None of the above is debatable. It is not susceptible to your popular consent or understanding of it.

What the olde early feminists mean by eugenics and what I mean by it are two different things. (They conspire to hijack and redefine everything.)

Testing and sterilization based on childhood intellect and talent would solve most problems man now has. It is just a question of what tests are accurate in discerning what I want and how to get to place where all that is imposable.

If not eugenics, civil war will happen. That is a far less surgical cull and the results are not as predictable.

Again, it is not contingent on your popular consent or understanding of it.

===========================
RE: Voluntary euthanasia and especially abortion of the disabled.

Some agony aunt(dear abbey type) in Britain defending voluntary euthanasia said in response to an outrageous strawman about "killing disabled babies" that smothering a disabled baby would be the merciful and good thing to do.

I don't actually advocate the smothering part (or any post natal snuffing --even though the newborn doesn't know anything or sense much), because the symbol is too much for simple puritan mind. But the intent and point, is correct and good.

There is such a thing as life better off to have never formed.

And it helps "conservatives" to have small societies of healthy similar-typed people...

The more differences and dysfunctions(off the "norm") you keep alive, the more government that will form to provide for them and buy their votes, ultimately customizing culture to meet their needs --at the expense of customizations that comfort or placate 'you'.

This isn't that complicated. Ergo I conclude that you all can't put even a simple two domino long equation together:

More variants and dysfunctionals alive = more new social orders (potentially hostile to "yours") and protections (ie authorities /governments) to deal with that.

Duh.

Conservatives have no problem with putting people in jail. Ie inducing suffering. But a fetus? "We must keep it alive no matter what!" ...Even though the fetus doesn't know what is happening and doesn't contemplate suffering or any of that.

You are indoctrinated into a simple false dichotomy, where-in you can't process as said even two domino long equations.

=================

Am I correct in thinking you are saying that complaining about justice, consistency, and other such concepts, is a useless strategy for attaining power?

Well as propaganda for the dense, they are fine. But don't actually fall for your own Santa Claus trick.

Propaganda schpiel yes. But at the same time, the leaders of the coming storm need to demonstrate that they understand what happened to the anglo west. Ie how we did it to ourselves.

How did we do it?

With cult like need to believe in the impossible, shutting out nature facts, head under blanky. (Bred-for simpleton-ness helps in shutting out nature facts.) _And our ignorance of the snowball of coup d eta Man is on._ Feminism is a straw on a camel's back; it did not just materialize out of nowhere.

(...Alpha beta gamma snowball-- the way men compete in groups, always looking for strength in number support which usually comes from "below"; our ignorance of eg eugenics (eg it does NOT mean death camps); christian bred-for infantilism/fear (head under blanky stuff) and dunc-i-fication (anti science/nature politics); Not thinking the techno snowball's implications through. [Tech snowball is Man's way of competing over status --the "great leveler" ...for underlings to use.] Like deer have antlers, men have tools... snowballing along into a bonobo-like economy/food supply.)

[Note eu and dys are relative; by "Eu-" I mean intellect and some self sufficiency. That destroys cities though. And that won't just happen. So it is 'catch 22.']

In order to prevent feminism from happening again we definitely need to grapple with the real causes. Blaming 'feminism' is like blaming the water for a leaky roof. We --the anglo west --built a bad roof. My evidence?

Other cultures and periods in history have been able to avoid these problems even though rain (female yapping and game playing) has always been happening.

Only a wet fool reasons with the rain.

All of that will generate confidence in leaders' abilities and draw more support.

----
As for details...

Hmmm.

We need high tech military support. Not those meat head "boots on the ground" guys; rather satellite naval/ air. A sabotaging minority would do. Then revolution coup --ala Chez Gurrera[sp], Adolph Hitler-- with communications (TV radio etc) and some political venues as target.

If military sabotage is effective that buys time to re-indoctrinate the Pavlovian horde. (I believe the polite term is "the people" but that always make me wretch when I say it.)

If most military high tech is on board then Chez-like coup in streets would not be necessary obviously. But military types are notoriously thick headed Pavlovian dogs. Ie well indoctrinated conformists.

In order to get military support, communications power is needed first. ...So it is a catch 22.

So here we flounder.

=================

The "equalist" solutions... None of those solutions would work. Those types don't understand biology or reality accurately. Few do. Tis the Anglo/christian curse on man.

Ultimately the moderates have as much chance of getting into power as "extremists" (ie realists /the educated). Possibly less, since they don't inspire anyone into the civil war hopelessness necessary to get real regime change. Though _on the SURFACE_ moderates do appeal to more majority.

If the majorty is going to pick between apples and apples-lite they most often just pick apples (especially if apples-lite has been "exposed" by propaganda as a "history of oppression").

=================

Why we don't have leaders to stop oppression from and in civilization often.

"Expertise".

Born leaders often don't have that, since "expertize" means specialty and specialty is the focus of/trick of the runt male. Specialty is like when a 50 year old man buys a corvette: "he is compensating".

How is specialty like that? Well weak men compensate by hyper-focus in a category they think they can finally win in. `E voila: specialty. (Precociously self aware --eg jews-- or lucky men focus their compensation-for-weakness energies in "power node" specialties, such as law and media.)

Expertize. Men who have it, already made it through the selection pressures of civis' upwardly mobile caste structure pressures and are profiting. Ie no reason to oust the status quo anymore. A status quo that can really only be ousted by "Expertise"/hyper-focus. (Those profiting types need to be convinced that their short term victories are long term dead ends. But that entails those winners having more aptitude than your common specialist possesses.)

Specialty is what civilization breeds for. Civi is a bunch of runts from childhood in a coalition getting back at the males from childhood who are "normal".

Then caste structures naturally form even between that brotherhood of runts after they cull back the normal males.

What we are left with then is "feminism". Ie women; the creatures that poison their men, steal inheritances from their children, act as frustration inducing mindfucking sub-intellectual spiteful children, act as the catalysts for competition and those stresses and problems, the creature that is more desired than the reverse, decietful, secretive and often vicious (as compensation). But only now that creature isn't as balanced out by more robust men, since those robust men have been culled back by the coalition of runts that create and run civilization.

The motor of that runt ascension-dependent-on-culling-back-"normals" is the "alpha beta gamma dynamic". A runway train of underling coups.

(Civilization: a literate caste structure from the near east, diffusing out culturally then genetically, like ripple rings from a coin in fountain, with the central gravity itself moving north west. ...A female hive as an inevitable side effect of the universe and its multi cellular emergent properties itself.)

----
Also note why MRAs don't have leaders... the message board here has gone way down hill once the plug was pulled on the vibe that brought the competent sane men --leaders-- to the front. The men most other males are afraid of...

---
These are all testosterone issues. That and oxytosin/vasopresin. If Testo was at higher and more consistent levels in and between the male sprogs pooped out by the whore holes that make up civilization, we wouldn't have feminism anymore. Hell we wouldn't have civilization either. So there you go.

(Freewill isn't real; just determinism is -- bio/carbo-nitro or otherwise. You may now thumbs-down this post; that'll make you feel better.)

Don't get me wrong. I personally want more oxytosin and less "meanness" and competition in society and I understand and agree with the point about following a leader with competence. But facts is facts.

We need to solve the problem by understanding what the problem really is not what our delusions or hopes think it is. ...You can't build an aeroplane if you deny gravity is real. That plane won't fly, even if you denounce or ignore gravity as yucky.

How feminism happened II

2010-09-02T13:57:00.026-04:00

In the midnight hour...
(she cried 'more, more, more'!)

===========

Here is how feminism happened:

[Note names are generic.]

The Lorenzos --aristocrat family of Florechi-- oust the Mediore's --rulers of Florechi-- through alpha beta gamma coalition-based coup d ta principle. The Lorenzo tactic is rallying up support from dock workers _from Florechi_.

Lorenzos are subsequently ousted by their lieutenants who need to look to other duchy(county/states) to find a wider ring of dock worker support. (One can see how it is starting to go bad for the Florechine labor already there.)

Those Lieutenants then --who recently became the leaders-- are in turn ousted by their body guard class (the beta). The body guards must further cast their net wide to find bedfellows.

Like most things Italian, that dynamic spreads to the imbeciles of Britain(further fueling the same dynamic already happening). (Ripple rings from a coin thrown in a fountain is the diaspora pattern of civilization itself, starting from the MidEast; Literacy --NOT coincidentally chronologically synonymous with civi-- got selected more than other variant memes as the best/biggest coalition glue.)

And the vicious cycle continues.

[The point: the beta --agitators-of-coup-- looking for bedfellows is why females were enfranchised.]

And here we is. ...Pretty soon the next coup's agitators (eg one legged dames trying to oust the two legged "oppressor" dames) will need to enfranchise dolphins or chimps so as to find even lower dock workers to use as useful idiots.

I don't think the enlightenment revolutions' instigators ("founders") or the British economic "philosophers" who put forth trickle-down could think on that vicious cycle plane; ie they didn't desire or contemplate feminism as the long term game. Humans are not as self aware as they pretend. And grand prediction is the province of a very slim few.

Note the US founders did say to uppity females of the day --their wives, note-- when admonished to "include the ladies" in the persnickety and confusing revocolution[sic] thing that there already was a "tyranny of the petticoat" that the law of god's nature had long bequeath to [dames]. "[And that's why ya can't just make dames equal and have it work out equal.]" And DeTouqville types did warn about snowballing proto-feminism and etc populisms, seeing the equality-snowball's writing on the wall.

By the time acute fem "emancipation" occurred, nobody was honestly thinking about females being equal anyway (`cause thinking is long extinct on alpha beta gamma island**) --dames were just another ring of bedfellows sucked into the coup d ta cycle. (**No-thinking on Alpha Beta Gamma Island is ironic too, since the alpha beta gamma train is what done drove us to neo cortex station in the first place. But the train keeps right on going. `All aboard.)

Maybe, some of the latest ascendant males(brain dead as they be) are just starting to grapple with the notion that feminism is a tool to keep underclass males out. (Males can be kept out only now that shoulders are no longer needed because of industrialism's blossoming implications.)

(Note that industrialism is the side effect of male human competition. ...Snowballing across the ages, the shed antlers of competition over pu$$y piling up. Oh the irony! Such is the universe: a long string of grand ironies. The nature of this malevolent beast called god? [Good thing that cock sucker doesn't exist or I'd have a few choice words to share with him.])

Males need to stop competing : be made the same (dames too) ["a better world through chemicals[tm]"]. Or KILL the losers. That stops the alpha beta gamma snowball and its game of finding bedfellows through triangulation conspiracies; thus it stops feminism. That can stop "growth" though, which needs a caste structure of specialty. Specialty is the side effect of males running away from their lost battles to find niches of display to call their own. A catch 22. [That pesky ironic Universe at work again.] If we go down the path of fatal dueling as the way of stopping ABG, what the arenas of death will be --ie what man will breed for-- is up in the air [note eu and dys are relative].

============

Men are roosters fighting over the hen house. Some roosters are strong, some are weak (in any given category/ arena). Complexities develop in that rooster vs rooster fight. Feminism is one such complexity in that battle.

Until men can be assured that other men are not a threat they will not ally against pussy.

Gorillas don't have feminism. Why? One adult male per breeding territory. Orangutan don't have it. Why? both genders are loners with a raping polygynist male having a territory that encapsulates many female smaller territories. (Out of all apes [tail-less primates closely related to man], orangs have a dynamic most similar to say cougars or tiger. The gorilla are similar to a sappy mormon polygynist household: daddy is last word but it is all sappy and cuddly [between the genders].)

Chimps do have female leverage _and dalliance_ and bonobo chimps have promiscuous femdom with males infantile; stunted, practically to down syndrome in some estimates. (Bonobos are similar to San Francisco or other 'modern' cities.)

It seems if the food supply is good and females can therefore tolerate each other and collude _and runt males of the litter thrive_, feminism happens.

Gorillas do have females in groups tolerating each other but don't have feminism. The reason for that is one big jealous crushing-blow sexually active male per group instead of the chimp male hierarchy (Alpha Beta) and conspiracy thing.

So the only way to stop feminism so far is for men to be isolated individuals. (America pays lip service there but doesn't really understand it or advocate taking it to its necessary extreme, thereby making the whole anti state exercise futile. America is accident of exploration age geography, not symptom of thought through philosophy.)

If there are any male dominant hives/large civic structures in nature, I don't know of them and their evidence is not trickling down out of academia properly. (Hmmm I wonder why [sarc] --'marxist' dark age.)

We would have to define male dominance first (trust me we haven't) and then look at all the hives and _other colonial organisms_ and see if any are male "dominant"; and then out of those, see if any are close enough to our meme (assembly line ways and means) that they can be imitated/learned from.

It is either that or loner-ism. In space, forever a drift by purposeful design. A cosmos filled with M. Gaugins and bounty mutineers. (Pitcairn failed because not enough females to go around and caste structure of slaves --with the slaves armed of all things. [And as has been said too many Irish (read: dumb). LOL I agree.] Food was plentiful and diverse.)

Sometimes males can fake "patriarchy" (ill defined as it is) temporarily if they are fighting an enemy(often other males) at the behest of the civic-center (female etiquette at the very least if not female dominant). Inside the fraternity of warriors --the merry few, the band of brothers-- there is a kind of ghetto of masculinity, where the males --like dogs chasing sticks--think they are in charge of something and free. (Men are not very bright actually and very susceptible to head up assness --it is comfortable to be ignorant.)

Sea horse (fish) are fascinating in that the females fight each other over the males. Note the males are impregnated by the females with the males having the ability to throw out the female eggs it doesn't want. That's why the females fight --to get other females away from males so as to limit his choice --truly an exception proving the rule. The hyena have the female dominance thing (though what type I'm not sure: nothing-- NOTHING-- academia has said about any thing biology is worth a pile of shit literally. We are in a very sever dark age vectored in by American ignorance and belligerence(jesus saves).) Females kill each other in the litter based on sorority pecking orders. They have interesting distended clitori, paralleling penis display that has formed.

...Space loners. Or improbable hive of sexually valuable males.

Those are the two choices. 'We is all equal' is NOT a choice.

========

Gibbons
Orangs
Gorillas
Chimps (and bonobos)
homonids (australs and homos)

Those are the apes.

Gorillas and chimps are fundamentally different species with way different social dynamics.

Gorilla live like mormons or islam
chimps live like high euro period
bonobos live like greenich village
orangs live like loners who make raping booty calls

Gibbons live like hmm... arboreal apes? (Monkeys with out tails LOL.) [I don't know: probably similar to softcore baboons [who get rough in male vs male ways] or some other monkey dynamic.]

Someone told me that gibbons are monogamist pair bonded loners. If so they are similar to jackals. That is ideal for you sappy types out there (like me). (Though I like the gorilla thing two. ;o))

This isn't that hard to understand or lay into memory. (As someone just said "dumb as a texas school book".) You all should not be voting.

=========

I hereby request that the word "alpha male" when talking about "pulling power" be replaced with "womanizer" or "lothario" or "hey that dude is good with pussy [like most male humans raised as upper siblings in female lower sibling houses]". You are just corrupting terms.

The underclass aristos --of say florence or colonial america-- were still pulling top chicks yet they were the "beta" of the alpha beta gamma coup de ta dynamic (which snowballed mankind into our greatness and feminism too).

It is not appropriate the way the 'player' community uses it. Just like when Naomi wolf types use it to talk about presidents/candidates clothing. (Eg whether the candidate is wearing the alpha red tie or wool 'academic /beta' blazer.)

And it is over used.

According to 'alpha' coiner in lupinology it is no longer valid specifically for wolves.

It is still valid --according to coiner-- in group dynamics where rank has been fought over. Eg chimps.

I could use Plato's gold silver and bronze classes to explain my model for how humans snowballed to a place where males lost all sense of control over the dalliance tendency in the females (and lost the authority to keep her asinine illogic out of "hallowed halls", where a male relativist conceit called logic dwells). But why would I?

========

Yes confident people smile. Is it that the confident are that way because they have usually won thus they think "I will win again", or is that the instinct-generated confidence-like display (regardless of aptitude or previous victories) gets more breaks? I think the former.

Interesting to note that the smile impulse [created by a module] is an appeasement display of the young/unhealthy/feminine/underling in chimp society (showing that mouth is closed--"no bite I") yet now it is the confidence display of the top dogs.

As a thought exercise can anyone figure out why underclass chimp modules would be thick in upperclass humans? (Hint: use the alpha beta gamma principle as your guide --along with natural selection of course.)

=================
First a quick necessary pre req:

I understand the Universe to be domino effect chain reactions. Nothing happens that is not inevitable. (And there is no point to any of it that is discern able or relevant to us.)
........

I could have said "the cycle of AlphBetaGamm coups _for Euros_ has LED INEVITABLY to LIBERALISM and FEMINISM."

Euros are apparently too empathic to, or not able to, kill or otherwise limit our runt variations each generation. Possibly because our food supply is better [making us nice at the psychobabble level] and our tool kit is better and that is keeping alive mundo variants that would normally die in the litter.

Not killing the runts(eg infantiles) leads to snowballing coups _rallied around the ousting of masculinity ('adult-ness') itself._

The other political groups of humans(non western ones) (or chimps or dolphin or any group/pack species) are in alpha beta structures with coups too. But the coups rally around replacing a _healthy_ male or grouplet with another very similarly healthy male or grouplet. For European humans the coups are not battles between similar morphologies; but rather the battles are between the ...freakishly distorted (lol) [mundo variants: eg monks] and the healthy original human designs. These freakishly distorted are uniquely kept alive by the unique Western human techno snowball (as said "food supply").

Feminism is the inevitable side effect of that Euro Western (some say Anglo) coup-trend to oust masculinity. ["The Alpha beta gamma principle" And "why /how feminism happened".]

If _Western_ conservative ideas of 'male vs male competition remaining static in a contented hierarchy' were going to work they would have already: we would NOT have snowballed out of that system _from which come. Again the domino -effect-inevitability thing.

We need to solve the root snowballing-runt-take-over problem so as to prevent its unsolved consequence --feminism-- from blind siding us. But the solution to that runt take over can't just be to advocate more conservative feetie stamping for that didn't work in the first place (we did after all snowball out of it): why would it work next time (even if we could get 'back there')?

Not to mention it makes good political-big-tent sense to be protectionists. Nobody will win power with out being one. NEVER, EVER EVER.

---------
Your question was good. I will eventually add my `figerin above to my blog page about the alpha beta gamma thing. I always implied in my own head what I meant above; your question made me bring it out. (Interesting to note how people have things in their heads which they take as givens.)

It is the techno snowball that is the root of why feminism is happening.

Tech is keeping alive a large litter of variants and that makes the typical coup d eta cycle really "go for a ride" for humans who have a large techno-induced diverse litter (eg Europeans).

To understand what develops from that techno snowball, think of a dog humping the leg...

You go into granny's house. She has a dog. You make nice-nice with the dog, scratching its chin and talking baby talk to it ("aw look-- the goodsy little cutsey utsy: do you wanna luvey yum yum? Yes that's a good sheep weepy") while petting it.

Then later you're at the table talking with granny and the thing is humping your leg. (The dog is, not granny.)

Granny says "stop that Fido!". Then she apologizes to you saying "the dog is a pervert --we think he's gay."

Wrong.

Dogs don't have complicated symbols of power. They don't wear red ties; they don't ride hogs. They simply hump legs --it is divorced from sex in his tiny brain (or inversely everything in his brain is sex display [because everything is ultimately]). Dogs don't do complexity.

And dogs don't read complicated signals about the pecking order. They simply read "weakness or strength". And the weak get humped. (If dogs were smarter[ie had more memory, which layers in complexity around simple things], they might try to pass bad checks to the weak, with a Machiavellian fang tooth smile.)

So what the dog is saying to you or another boy dog when it humps like that is "Hey listen new guy, this is the batting order: it's granny, THEN ME and then you. Got it?"

Your well mannered and affectionate petting of the dog simply convinced the dog that you are weak. The dog being a simple automaton of reflex responses to contingency humped your weakness back in kind.

Well the female human is a simple automaton responding to weakness too. The men of western culture act weak; feminism is a giant leg-hump back in kind.

_The reason the western men act weak is our western coup d eta is rallied around getting rid of manliness itself; that coup-trend is a selection pressure breeding us down the path of weakling males from the litter. Ie our euro techno snowball has created an environment where the "strong" are not the "fittest". Savvy?_

Note when a shogun family is ousted in a coup it is ousted by another bad-ass shogun-type family. In Euro-sphere it is the shogun family being ousted by conspiratorial weirdos(monks and such). These weirdos are kept alive and or invigorated/armed-by our techno-induced success.

=============
You ask why do I advocate making all men the same?

Well conservatism has been painfully unable to stop this 'coup-of-weirdos' cycle through its cry for individualism and more masculine competition.

This ineffectiveness becomes especially absurd when one factors in that --due to complexity and religious modules in our human heads-- the american/anglo conservatives are notoriously at cross purposes with their stated goals. American conservatives fight the "Nazis"; they fight the religious hill people of the 3rd world (and before that the injuns); they try to keep alive all the runt babies (and use that as display of dominance on the planet --"look what we can do--we protect weirdos better than you"); they advocate more industrial, capitalist-growth society --techno snowball-- _which is exclusively the baby-incubator and dialysis for runts_.

(The religious brain-module --while great at building pyramids and Stonehenge-- prevents you from untangling your minds from this cross purposes thing.)

If Ted Nugent pounding on his chest was going to work at stopping the "runt-coup cycle" it would have already. People who claim the up hill water supply for themselves are super super vulnerable to strength in numbers counter from the people who live down stream in the valley below _given our human group vs group form of competition_.

We can't fail to recognize the actual situation...

The Romans march at us and we, the barbarian hill people, do the barbarian charge thing back at them.

We get repelled with heavy losses.

So we need another plan.

But the new plans are denounced inside the barbarian war council as "Romanism"(liberalism). And the war council opts instead for simply "charging faster" at the Roman turtle shell.

That doesn't work.

============

Direct chemical things(eg the ole "you got your birth control pill in my peanut butter") could be a culprit, and /or it could be complex "nurture syndrome" hormonal "epi-genetic" effects, created by social signaling/ social "symbols".

There are psycho babble ways of creating physiological results. Eg "indoctrination" for one simple example. Many of these things are are unwitting and PROFOUND but real none the less. Humans haven't even begun really to think on that scale.

______________________
====================

Dworkin's definition of rape and marriage is the correct one.

Dimorphic sex is an emasculation attack on an inferior. That's what we come from.

Females won't admit the above for self esteem reason (though they know it's true). They conjure elaborate BS to try and vent that without admitting it. Things such as "[human quid pro sexual exchange (which is human courtship and pair bonding) is rape because the female can't give "meaningful" consent given that she was historically less economically sovereign]". Ie they are delusionoids AND liars that don't want you to know that they are submissives.

All feminism is that reaction to their own submission fetish. (Along with it being a tease and taunt of the males ("shit test").) The more masculine ones --often more ignored by males(therefore even more angry)-- become the aggressive vanguard(front point) --the champions(in the old hired-knight sense)--of the females. As the males become weaker--_because of what civilization breeds for in men [see 'alpha beta gamma']_ the females ascend into masculinity unchallenged (wherein the females become the top dogs of the wolf pack and hump the pack into compliance).

Humans are in a period now where the females are of two minds (and any individual female can be of two minds about this at once, while not actually thinking about it at all); some want the ego stroke of female-sexual-value femininity --super buttressed now by more female power-- and some want to continue the power grab down the path of more masculinizing (where in they can claim their own emasculated victims, after engaging in combat over them.

It is like a cuttlefish experiment --or some other soft wired hermaphrodite species. (Pre req: Dimorphic sex for these organisms is an emasculation battle where the first to mature become males and then they stunt the underling siblings/cousins making them the females. Vertebrates come from that dynamic; see Sharks (early verts).) For this experiment, take the male cuttlefishes out of the tank. Watch now as the oldest/biggest females of the harems will --now unstunted (cause the males are missing)-- finish their growing and become male and then continue to fight over and stunt their own harems of "raped" victims.

Gentlemen, I give you dimorphic sexuality. God loves us so.

___________________________
========================

School is a jury rigged pro female environment.

=============

Jews are a race from the middle east but mostly now from baltic slavia. They are certainly a cultural diaspora if not genetically distinguishable. (But they are genetically distinguishable.)

White males are gullible gits. And jews are exploitive migrants. Why is the first half of that diagnosis allowable in public discourse but not the second?...

It is relevant to our cause that most of our enemies have been of one cultural/genetic group over and over and over.

And like I said that nuttery from that site is jewish (in genes and cultural affiliation--I don't know what "religion" it is nor do I care). I'll eat my shorts if that is not true.

Also I said the group is homosexual and masochistic. (Symptom of that genotype.)

Biological diagnosis are relevant to politics.

==========
=============
============

Do they factor the gender of parent child abusers? Do they tally the gender of child abuse victims? Most importantly, do they use the feminist definition of DV (emotional stuff, "walking on egg shells" etc) and apply it to child abuse?

If they did lens child abuse and gender, did they note that mothers are more guilty of DV than any other group? And their main target is boys more than girls?

Liberals believe children are what they are because of nurture syndrome but society conveniently ignores that fem parents are the core vectors of most nurture syndromes. Further our society holds the grown sons accountable but not the eye of the storm mother.

Most adult DV is female infidelity caused; females are not just innocent victims who want to be in wuv foeva N eba. [Golly, aint they adorable?] Also ethnic and low class--ie both liberal protected groups-- commit more of all the crimes liberals measure. Not the "patriarchy" of git white males in their suits. But to hear liberals talk you would think the world is being raped and beaten by Lawrence Summers et al.

Just a thing about studies first... They are conjure-ings within the zeitgeist(fashion); Anything --eg factoid-A-- that doesn't fit within the zeitgeist will be off the table regardless of how fallacious the studies wind up being without factoid-A. Eg like studies about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in the middle ages. The whole premise was absurd. But that fact would be studiously ignored --or attacked-- by the schools of thought debating (and 'publishing' about) just how many angels.

(I was once talking about paleo anthro. And there upon it was said to me that the human social sexual dynamic of the past was similar to the dynamic of the modern west. I asked "what about male jealousy and its violence (untethered then, for there was no police-state hive-complexity yet) controlling female game playing and ascendancy"? I was told that "they don't believe in violence against women" and therefore that fact was off the table, and then they went back to their discussion ignoring me --in an anthropology class! That is one way we get the "matriarchies of the past" canard.)

Another thing about "studies": People, being "creatures of authority", have a tendency to shut off their own observations they know to be true so as to be in the good graces of authority-published statements --especially if those statements catch on popularly. Note how a wildebeest will not jump into a raging river if alone but will if the herd is already jumping. Strength-in-number species have compulsions to stay within the group even if it means shutting out truth to stay in the in-group. [I'm not saying you are doing this; I'm just fleshing out my opinions of "studies" and people and such.]

How many girls in your high school and college did you see that were under siege from a patriarchy? And if there were any, what schools in what towns `cause I'm moving there. ...Ie we all went to school-- we all know the deal: females are liars and idiots, often callous, who are running amok in a grande dalliance environment. (We've even invented new fancy words for this enviro to protect our deification of females _and ourselves given our instinctual libidinous desire to aspire towards them_: "serial monogamy".) But we are told by authority that fem privilege is not the case --that the females are actually oppressed and hurt. And tunnel-vision lensed, just-so data is published to "prove" it. ...And the weak-minded cave in first and that starts a domino effect synergy.

[Why this zeitgeist and authority believes and publishes what it does has been grappled with by me in my endless screed about the 'alpha beta gamma' snowball, jewish/marxist ascendancy and capitalist-focused distopia.

The caste structure is as follows: academics[bishops] then trickling down to the media[priest] and then lastly the pols[deacons]. Science is nervous system and law is glands, police and military are immune system, capitalists are digestion and _circulation/blood_ of our giant body/hive. Just FYI stuff.]

=-=-=-=-=
As for my point, do you believe children are hit more often by mother or father in this culture? At the very least we have a single fem parent culture; that means just proximity to children wise the females are more relevant to a child's formation of issues. What about other "issues"? Like boosing or neurosii? Which gender is more often the vector of that stuff?

We don't need no study: we have our own life histories and observations therefrom.

You've never seen or heard a mother haul off and wack a kid [read boy] at the walmarts or park etc? Have you ever seen a man do it? If so, did witnesses just let it happen without comment? Which gender?

"Liberals believe children are what they are because of nurture syndrome; but society conveniently ignores that fem parents are the core vectors of most nurture syndromes. Further our society holds the grown son accountable but not the eye of the storm mother who raised him."

When it comes to black crime or whoever and whatever our society demonstrates that it does understand the nurture syndrome premise.

We only trace back the nurture-syndrome-causation sophistry, when the "right" classes (_as chosen by the zeitgeist_) are in the cross hairs. And we only trace back nurture causation until the zeitgeist finds a political out class to hold accountable. ...Ole finger bangin' uncle Jedidiah [a man] --back in 1842-- is to blame [for thoroughly modern jenny drowning her kids (while blaming it on a black)]. The fact ole crazy hair aunt Martha --in 1796-- could also be accountable(and so on and so on) will not be on the table.

----------
We already have studies that say female humans _start_ as many physical fights as men with opposite sex lovers (not to mention the lesbian data --"lesbians hit most of all").

That fact has been bent into a straw-man by profem (left and right) so that they don't need to actually address it and change their world views and agendas. The straw-man is "women don't hit as hard and therefore the studies are irrelevant". Ah, but women _start_ as many fights (and have the same motivations for doing so as men [relationship stress/self esteem/control]) and therefore men are simply fighting back and are not just ogres. (And he'd better fight back too: I assert strongly that she will cheat rampantly --and historically always has-- if he doesn't.)

And the fact that wimmins also now hit more to get their way says that nature will still keep happening even when the females are in charge. _And therefore a core liberal utopian premise --"getting rid of men will create peace and love"--is bunk_. (Not to mention that premise is sexist and prejudicial in the extreme. ..Ah the liberal hypocrites.)

Note lions do not invent the savanna; the savanna selects for lion. Getting rid of lions simply causes the savanna to select for the savanna's next champion (in this case, hyena). It's like that episode of old Star Trek with the "pinwheel of war" up in the corner of the engine room making the 'earthers' and klingons fight. The universe itself is that pinwheel of war --our god... As unthinking and unfeeling and uncaring, as amoral --as indifferent-- as could be.

And that doesn't begin to address the fact that females are emotional abusers extraordinaire, par-non time immemorial even without using violence to get their way. And they are also the key catalysts for competition. They also use cajoled (or hired) proxies [men] to do their violence, like mafiosos hire hitmen.

=======

Foucault = What fucking babbling NONSENSE.

Circular to the core. The fact that it wasn't excoriated --indeed that it is read at all whether challenged or not-- is a great example of how the age of reason is a bust (not to mention the 19th cent Epiphanies) and how the anglo world conservatives are useful idiots dupes fighting for the wrong side .

(It is crackpot jibba jabba that could never survive a naturalist lens contesting it. That naturalist lens was beaten back by the .... conservatives, with the liberals laughing all the way to the bank.)

Very very few people have ever even read a discover magazine 2500 word article. But we know who "Foucault" is and critique his "work". Give me a fucking break!! (Damned creationist, useful idiot rube dupes!)

FYI make-up is part of ovulation display. Humans being clever --_and therefore cagey,_ especially the inherently deceptive dames --have "crypto [/cagey] ovulation". That way females can get food from men all the time not only when she is horny-signaling. Mankind is clever and inventive; therefore the female human buttressed that cagey game-playing with "artificial" amplifications. It is not some patriarchy pigeon hole-ing females into dead end lifestyles and focuses (to maintain power over them) or any of that nonsense.

Feminism is and always has been crack pot conspiracy belief.

And none of the naturalist stuff needs to be explained with long winded jargon-based books that take us on tangled journeys of sophistry and contradiction.

That makeup thing is similar to the crackpottery that tells up prostitution is the side effect of men just paying for sex(as a way of "demonstrating their power over females") rather than our species giving females some kind of profound power to charge a price in the first place.

Chicken and egg. _Crack pots are not good with chicken and egg._

It is so ridiculous I am surprised the men's right activist of the previous generation (70s-90s) didn't embrace it as the root of their principles. LOL (Not funny again.)

=================
The feminists in france are trying to apply their "power of symbology" jazz under the guise of nationalism.

If they believed in nationalism in france they would simply prevent other from coming in.

[ISP:] It's no coincidence that the there is a direct relationship between provocativeness of women's clothing (and sexual behaviour) and feminism/matriarchy.

--
That is correct.

But the culture is so filled with (literally) screw ball crackpotism --which defines democracy to the core-- we are told that all the T&A everywhere is actually the side effect of patriarchy out right forcing the females to do it or a least cajoling females through a complicated power of suggestion called "cultural symbols".

So we --the west --have invented this myth that there is a patriarchy in charge. Even though no one can see it, the evidence for it is anything deemed bad the females do. Bad female = proof some powerful though unseen patriarchy exists. More policy needed! Very convenient. And the conservatives are as guilty of this as anybody else.

This patriarchy scarecrow drowns out nicely the fact that there is actually a matriarchy in charge far, far more guilty of what it accuses men of: using belittling "cultural symbols" to cajole classes; and of creating and maintaining institutional discrimination to strip classes of power to self agency.

We then further ignore the fact that males show far more downward and negative indicators in all categories liberals choose to measure (normally meant to show the class so labeled as downward is oppressed by complicated institutional power of suggestion): underachievement, happiness, health, life span, sex partners, upward mobility, suicide, incarceration, workplace health etc, etc. Meanwhile we trump up female petty downward indicators and present them as evidence that patriarchy is real and through its behavior and display damaging females in some way.

Petty and twisted indicators like females running around in skivies everywhere: The patriarchy is forcing females to... manipulate people through T&A display. Even though that is actually the side effect of female liberation not their oppression. But facts like that in non underground circles are simply dismissed as "misogyny".

LOL

=============

The acid test is this...

If men had power like they did and do in say the western past and islam, are there strip clubs and female sexual display everywhere?

No.

That tells us something.

Same can be said about divorce, "abandoning of the family"/"ill raising of children by dead beat dads" and infidelity everywhere. When the men have power that stuff doesn't happen. Sexual game playing and exploitation of sex is a female thing. The more power females get the more that stuff will occur. If we believe that stuff is male fault and problem then the more it occurs the more evidence we will have that men must still have some kind of profound unseen power over society and dames. Very convenient self creating propaganda loop.

What you have with the protag of your STORY is a "whore with a heart of gold" saga. It has been done before: men are gullible and need to feel needed. (Violetta: La Traviata.)

It is common to see pussy under siege when one has a daughter or can't get dates.

Seeing penis squirt early is not the be all end all we are led to believe it is. There are many things worse than being boinked by uncle.

There are chicks who have been diddled etc that didn't become whores or commit suicide. And many strippers and sex workers haven't been fucked with. It is probably IQ based.

Not to mention whoring is not not necessarily the weakness [ie problem for those so 'afflicted'] that people say it is. A sign of being a victim is jumping nervously when the phone rings; showing your clam for a living with a smirk on your face is not a sign of weakness. It is a type of bad-ass strength (that other girls covet but are too shy) and the sign of conceit and presumptuousness in the extreme.

I am far more concerned about the boys raised in single fem households and handled by the atrocious school system and culture at large --even though they were not literally fucked by mother or aunt. If we are waiting for females-holding-authority to start fucking people en masse --no less penetrating them-- before we see them and their lifestyles as damaging to children we are going to be waiting a long time.

Boys endure more before they complain too. Therefore the careerists of the victim industry don't address their woes.

And when males break we don't trace their life stories back: The nurture syndrome rap used by society is for the females only.
...Female drowns children: "patriarchal pharmacy culture" is to blame! or inattentive husband (of all things). A husband hits cheating wife: men[read: all] are animals; It doesn't matter, that guys life story.
...females don't make it to NASA: patriarchy "symbols" must be stunting and stupefying fems in some way(though these symbols are invisible). Meanwhile boys have way worse downward indicators than girls, yet it is not blamed on the obvious anti male propaganda and policy everywhere.

The nurture syndrome hypocrisy in this culture is legion!! It is not my forte to do data spin but it is everywhere. If one was going to burn energy on gender issues and doesn't have big picture existential genius ability, there is a healthy vein there for mining.

Females are weaker and complain more; are good with the doe eyes. Therefore little things that happen to them will appear to fuck them up (good for business). This is especially true if the female [read lying whore] thinks she has a mark on the line. Again "whore with a heart of gold" nonsense.

Females are for fucking. If you can't handle that then don't make daughters or cut your dick off.

The acid test is this...

If men had power like they did and do in say the western past and islam, are there strip clubs and female sexual display everywhere?

No.

That tells us something.

Same can be said about divorce, "abandoning of the family"/"ill raising of children by dead beat dads" and infidelity everywhere. When the men have power that stuff doesn't happen. Sexual game playing and exploitation of sex is a female thing. The more power females get the more that stuff will occur. If we believe that stuff is male fault and problem then the more it occurs the more evidence we will have that men must still have some kind of profound unseen power over society and dames. Very convenient self creating propaganda loop.

Is a hungry fish [john] not exploited by the hook[-er]?

==================
===============

Everything is chemical determinism. No such thing as free will (as we understand it at any rate). Ie there is no such thing as "moral deficiency". If one lacks self discipline it might not be a "thyroid condition" making their asses fat but it would still be a bio chemical situation in their "self discipline gland". (Same with alcoholism or anything like that too.)

(I am not fat and don't know any fat ones: I don't have a dog in this race. (I'm not an alcoholic either.) If one must know, my root pyschobabble beef with this culture is I have red hair and _was victimized by a selfish cunt single fem parent hysterical-nutjob substantially_; and other snowballing implications of those. And I don't like the snowballing dysgenic and dark age academia trend too just on instinct being high aptitude, Nordic(ie marginal) and smart. Chicks actually dig me big time: the best dames in the room always go out of their way to offer up. (I will eventually 'out myself'--ie show photos-- when the time and money is right.) I simply didn't like that after Nicole said "[fat chicks still expect to be treated like human beings outside the bedroom; silly fools{sarc}]" people kept laying into her anyway.)

=====================

"Evolution", simply means change over time. This change is caused by the root principle which is cause and effect. "Evolving" doesn't mean better or worse. Better and worse are relative and not attached to time. (Note though, in entirety the universe has gotten more complex _in its chain reactions._)

Evolution happens through Natural Selection. NS means different puppies in a litter (these variants are created by cause and effect, traced back to the beginning); only some live as selected by the local environment. Environments formed and changed over time because of cause and effect too. Some enviros remain static for a long time: eg river swamps which select for the same two mawh and pah crocodiles from the 40 variant eggs [most dieing each season], regardless of where the rivers snake to].

NS is not morally directed as far as we can see. Morality is a relative construct of the observer. Note morals have changed over human history many times; each time, the latest morality has been embraced as absolute cosmic truth.

Man doesn't just "evolve".

==========

1) Different variations occur.

When we spit, all those sea monkeys aint just like pawh. Note that two wolves doing the knotting /fucking are the best (at dog stuff). Yet all their puppy _variants_ don't all come out the same and don't all live.

2) Male libido is not any where near as discriminatory as the females' (accepting that the species in question is a 'females do the picking species'). Males have a wide lens libido (as I explained just recently). That would pass on the ugly and unhealthy.

Most of the females breed (who survive disease pressures and food pressures). Then the acute selection --of those female variant traits-- happens to the males on their male-plane of competition: some males making it through the bottle neck and some not. In short males fuck anything while females only fuck certain mother's sons. Whether it is the sons fighting each other away form the females or the females picking the sons they like best, that is the way.

==============

There is a "physician, do no harm" thing in the sciences and its trickle down communities. Meaning some scientists/philosophers explain things wrong or set up faulty principles and paradigms. This allows doubters to burn the strawmen down and then turn off their minds to the whole concept should they come across it again.

It is said that a reason the american creationism thing happened as staunchly as it did was bad naturalists did poorly at explaining natural selection early on. And consequently americans have been burning down strawmen ever since and thinking that they are disproving naturalism. They get a prideful feeling thinking that they are smarter than scientists which just perpetuates the stubbornness (and the size of the continent --50 times bigger than Britain-- entrenches the cocky, stubborn willful blindness).

You are apparently prone to not getting or believing in naturalism. And bad paradigms(created by 'harmful-physicians') give you strawmen that vindicate your position.

---
I agree that the Biologies are a 'soft science' compared to physics and engineering (but engineering without a philosophy is the most dangerous thing --a Lamborghini out of control). And the 'human sciences' --socio anthro psycho babble and history--are absolute mush soft.

And from those mush soft "sciences" our laws come.

The direction of "logic train" should be physics [big picture amoral cause and effect] to root biology to paleontology, then paleo anthro and socio babble and history _with law LAST_.

But instead it is popular beliefs used by shameless demagogues [many jews historically] --pandering to Christian meek shall inherit the earth sentiment {NOTE that! --important!!]. Then, through that 'muscle-of-popularity', the demagogues invent socio anthro babble and history wishful thinking interpretations (sometimes meant to purposefully brainwash peon disciples who will spread) --censoring contest liberally (given the power of popularity). Then that seeps into and infects the biologies (censoring challenge again). If this keeps up, soon we will be drawing star pictures in the sky again; and everything seen will be female gods.

But regardless of the softness and harmful physicians (who are on our side but harmful) --or because of that-- we can not relinquish that battlefield! We must go forward now that that Pandoran box has been opened.

============

Drs and lawyers and such are not alpha males of homo sapiens. So what ever they believe, do and impose is not what alpha sapiens would believe, do and impose. (Interesting to note how humans have changed more in the last one hundred years than in all the other centuries before; also interesting to note how "nurture" and chemistry works in the hive to shape children's dispositions.) They might be termed the alpha of this new species of hive creatures man is creating (so long as the hive remains dimorphic).

Side note regarding this female choice thing: If the alpha males are successful at getting rid of the other males, then female "choice" has been eliminated (just like when roosters or bears or lions kill each other). We come from a species where the males eliminated each other acutely regularly up until very very recently. (Even now the hive vs hive slaughters are really just male complex against male complex. That's about to change though.)

What you're calling alpha males are simply elites of an "upside down world" (where the runts of the litter-past are the authority now). An upside down world that occurred because of the alpha beta gamma principle. Alpha beta gamma means a snowball of beta instigated coups against the presumptuous and bullies at the top of the old barbarian social structure (and the even more ancient prehistoric '"cave man" one).

This system snowballed into runt-dom in the first place because of human techno. The techno snowball is a side effect of the way male humans compete (over females). ...Deer have antlers and Men have gizmos. Eventually the gizmos reached a critical mass --thus changing the environment/village/ selection pressures-- and kept alive the weird from kid hood and stuff. Once alive at all the runts rebel (motivated by envy of the presumptuous and fear of the bullies) and win through strength in-numbers /Lilliputians vs Gulliver.

Very easy to understand actually. Puzzle solved. Most female naturalists/primatologists/ anthropologists understand it BTW. They understand that food supply change (techno snowball) comes first and that allows coalitions to form against the harem lord authority of the minority of healthy males who are motivated by sexual control issues.

The "alpha males" of the wolf breed controlled their females. The alpha males ("elites") of this chihuahua breed we've become (our anglo system) don't. But to say the "alpha wolves liberated the females" misses the huge elephant in the living room which is the snowball of coups to oust the better dog breed past (from which we come).

Last time I checked viking hordes men or even celtic fringe tribesmen (scots and stuff) didn't "liberate" their females. The snowball of civilization did.

Now we have institutionalized beta coup d eta in the form of democracy ("institutionalized coup" is a bad thing too, 'cause it releases steam [because of hope for change] that would boil over into civil war more often). The elites of this system have been selected by the pressures of the system and know how to bob and weave within it so as to achieve their rank (which they convert into sex --the point of all rank acquiring). The hive has begun. The borgdom of space awaits.

...And so it was that man was cast from Eden as punishment (for something he did not do). ...To the Great Whore that is the city : Babylon. ...Where the fools become the kings and the whores take those kings, nee fools, as THEIR concubines.

Why don't you all know this stuff for yourselves?...

That doesn't bode well.

==============

Capitalism

2010-09-02T13:55:00.011-04:00

"More more, more more More!"

______________
-----------------------

So called "trickle down" is not INCORRECT. It is not so called 'voodoo.' It is proceeding EXACTLY as the 1700 Scots said it would: It is creating "growth"(easier, safer, fatter living) and with it the very potential itself for new social orders to develop.

What it is is bad politics and bad social theory. It is unelectable as a party (in any system no less a two party one) since people don't like top dog hubris and it is not understood (as demonstrated by everyone's ignorance of what trickle down even means); And it doesn't think its "growth" implications through.

But the economic theory is accurate. ..."Allowing the entrepreneurs to get super rich _motivates_ them to run rabbit run; That creates more hamsters running in their wheels; those wheels are the turbines that make modern society go. Modern society with all of its "fat living" is the only thing that creates the [psychological] prerequisites for liberalism to blossom."

"Trickle down" (more properly "unleashed entrepreneurial greed") is why we have everything that we have in the west --including liberalism AND rampantly spreading "foolishness" (that normally died away each generation without breeding).

===============

My anti democracy /capitalism/ Christianity/ libertarianism thing in a concise package. [This section must grow and hopefully will.]

Just saying "tax break hurts government and therefore capitalism is anti feminist" isn't good enough for it doesn't give us a mechanism for how humans will no longer be psychologically susceptible to the protectionist demagoguery that makes government liberalism happen in the first place.

Note that capitalist democracy and feminism are uniquely synonymous in history. Note that cultures without capitalist democracy don't have feminism in practice. You have not observed that for yourself?

(Same with jebus horseshit. Just cause it says in verse jibba jabba-to the n that "wimmith should not cutteth thy hair shorteth" doesn't actually mean Christianity's bred for wimpiness (anti viking/anti barbarian robustness) over the last millenia+ is not uniquely synonymous with feminism's cultural and historical ascendancy.)

Also there is the very deep concept of techno growth snowball being the root of the new selection pressures that are keeping alive all the runts that make feminism possible at all. [feminism is a dog humping the leg of weakness; that weakness is uniquely kept alive by "modernism" which needs techno to happen.]

Capitalism is a bad political glue/tactic, being about individualism and strip mining colonialism; Easy to demonize stuff by the big tent of liberalism. (So one must ask: do caps actually ever want to win and impose some policy they believe in or are they just masochists who enjoy being the walking strawman liberalism props up/allows in the room?) And capitalism's form of competition --as opposed to sword play and etc fatal competition-- keeps alive the losers thereby guaranteeing an anti capitalist big tent of reactionary vengeful losers forming; losers kept alive at all by capitalist growth (techno) itself! [oh the irony!] And entrepreneurial focus is an intellectual ghetto, forcing the men who want to achieve in that arena to not focus on or care about bigger picture trends--it is all about growth this quarter, "Fuck tomorrow". (Capitalism sells out its sons to buy a "better" wife today [oh the irony! again]; but it doesn't have the mind's eye to know this about itself.) And capitalism is dependent on being in the good graces of the dirty horde of dunces (and their handlers): one must be what the dollar holder demand wants one to be. Nothing good [thought through] will come from that.

And then there is the migrant [read jew] usury and banking thing the culture becomes beholden to. It is bad to be beholden to migrants --especially "Children of Lilith" /effete/feminist ones.

Prereq: We do not come from matriarchies made patriarchal by civilization's growth. That is totally backwards in the extreme despite what feminist western culture says (and it is overtly obvious too!!!). Talk about dunces[horde] and liars[feminists/jews] and blinder wearing inhabitants of psychological ghettos of competition [entrepreneurs].

This has all been said to death.

===========

America is a capitalist democracy that allowed marxists migrants and its own females to seize the narrative without contest. In actual communist and fascist countries that marxist control and female crap didn't happen and in china's case doesn't happen.

If capitalism and democracy stops feminism why didn't it? What is the missing ingredient in constitutional democracy and capitalism that will prevent it from easily and blithely --without contest-- being hijacked by liberal feminist social engineers?

If capitalism creates freedom for men then how come it has never turned into that anywhere it has been tried but instead has _always_ turned into feminism?

Why do conservatives call feminism fascism? What exactly is going on in their heads?

As I said and was ignored in order to protect your delusion, "fascism and [sov/china] communism is not as far to the social left in practice as american capitalist democracy has turned out to be everywhere."

Again capitalist democracy uniquely in history turned into feminism but fascism and communist Nations _in practice_ didn't.

What will prevent capitalist democracy from being hijacked by the "collective"[ie the "bad guys"] once again --even if we could get back to the colonial Age of Exploration starting point?

How will modern oppressed western men stop feminism --and get back to the "starting point"-- without forming a 'collective' action group to combat feminism? You do understand that strength-in-numbers is a "collective" right?

How come fem didn't happen in all the other fascist communist countries like you believe American is?

How come fem only happens in countries where the dichotomy has arranged itself into this bizarre capitalist-democracy verse "liberalism" (which of course is the root and child of capitalist democracy doh!)?

=====================
People are very confused and _blind_. The pattern is: "democracy, capitalism, Christianity, feminism liberalism."

Name a communist culture --no less a fascist one-- that has feminism _in practice_ to any level nearing the anglo west. Name a capitalist democratic culture that doesn't have feminism.

Go ahead: I'll wait.

Your blindness is caused by male conformity-to-my-village-symbols instinct.

Truth is a very painful thing. So much so, it is blinding; like looking into the sun.

Regime change now!

[BTW for you dunces "regime" doesn't mean the obama ADMINISTRATION. It means the democracy zeitgeist --the enlightenment and it long since hijacked and corrupted morals. The REGIME.]

==============

What is a "society" if not partnership of reciprocal altruists? What is it but a collective of do gooders saying they are looking out for each other (so as to achieve status and control in that group)? (You just did that with your "save the babies" abortion politik.)

Now do you see why liberalism and civilization are synonymous and why the _half baked_ ideals (capitalism, constitutionalism) never work?

(Your answer is of course, "no".

My next play then is "death to democracy; testing and sterilization".

...Aint prediction model fun?...)

---
Don't mis-define reciprocal altruism. Use it as commonly used by biologists. It is not a self aware exchange. It is like why piranha don't bite each other; or how crocodiles all breakdown a carcass making it possible for any one croc to eat from that carc; or how primates live in groups...

At any rate humans are always going to be in groups held together with protectionist politics for genetic reasons. Indeed even the communities who scream "NEE" about that --the individualists and capitalists (and their markets Doh!) and democracy constitutionalists --are still part of groups. And therefore american ideals are ABSOLUTELY unachievable. That was the point.

========

Socialism --especially fascism--would never ever tolerate nutjobs just getting involved.

One doesn't stop nutjobs by petitioning them for a tax break or appealing to them to not kill their babies in the name of jesus. One stops them, by putting them in camps where they can be "cured".

Until men accept that there is no hope. The question is why don't men accept that?

Answer: The alpha beta gamma snowball, chemicals in our enviro and sociological mission creep creating new chemistry/conformity for the majority (which inherently does not think).

Fighting them directly will not work for the same reason that fighting feminists/wimmin directly will not: There are too many males in power --at the top of where-ever and the military --who have long since multi generationally mindlessly conformed to the contradictory notions of democractic liberalism slippery sloping away for centuries now (as me and ISP have tried to explain).

What will you do? Tell that feminist pressure group that men are hurt too and provide your evidence and maybe throw some "illuminati people-farm" or "stop abortion" in there? LO fucking L.

And how are we going to petition the actual men who are in power (in the military and up top where ever) --who protect all this nutjobbery as their credo (so long as it's the "right kind" of nutjobbery)-- when the nature of achievers and profiteers is to support the status quo until it stops being directly profitable for them to.

The only way to change the minds of the successful is to have them stop being successful.

But you also can't reason with the insane from a pressure group. If they had powers for lucid interpretation of reality they wouldn't be part of what they are a part of. They maybe could be tricked, bribed or frightened away from what they've embraced but they can not be reasoned out of.

=============

lsp wrote:
MacKinnon incorrectly calls "Feminism, Socialism and Communism" one and the same; and she neglects to state that feminism/matriarchy is the ... inevitable end result, of Liberalism and Democracy.

She decries "Socialism and Communism" driving us towards their supposed opposites "Liberalism and Democracy" but these are actually just as bad.

By George, he's got it.

Whenever a liberal contests "socialism" it is ultimately to make the sheep embrace its counter which is... liberalism. Same with Ayn Rand and her "libertarianism stops communism" jazz: she's trying to prevent the only thing that can actually stop liberalism/communism --fascism-- from getting into power by exploiting american/colonial parochial anti state ism so it will undercut the incipient (early forming back then) anti-liberal fascist-coalitions. (That bait and switch might be more unwitting than purposeful but it is still the way it worked out in the wash none the less.)

Liberal democracy is worse than most forms of socialism for (what is being termed) "beta males". And capitalism and individualism is a partner and root of liberal trends not their antithesis.

White men would have been better off in a white male --jewless-- communist world. Ie socialist world. (Note China.) The white male, by fighting against 'socialism' simply put the "communists" --ie the 'modern liberals'-- in power over the planet. (Note the West's colleges and TV bureaus which marxist jews run.)

But the "communists" are crafty--they don't call it communism anymore. They call it democracy and "neo con [read Jewish] conservatism" (so as to use the gullible sheep of 'patriotism' as useful idiots). (That bait and switch might be more unwitting than purposeful but it is still the way it 'worked out in the wash' none the less.)

And BTW this isn't that complicated so I don't know why others can't already see this.

===============

There is no such thing as a world without a state or government. The whole contention is absolutely absurd. American colonial and outback crackpotism. This embraced absurdity is one reason the state has so abjectly oppressed "you".

You need to make a state work for you so it won't work against you. All that you nuts advocate is "atomization". That is exactly the condition in which you will be more easily oppressed.

Then you go "we will not be oppressed as atomized competing loners if we stop the state."

Well ...3rd base: there is no such thing as a world without a state.

=============
"...We aint need no fancy gubment tellin us we can't have no arsenic in no still. Granpappy said we be drinkin' it like this for five generation and it aint never done us no harm no how..."

=============

Denoucing the people's dept while prasing democracy is silly: The People's dept is democracy. I'm just saying.

______________
==============
CONSPIRACY-ISM

I don't believe in "conspiracy".

1) I would never compliment mankind like that. Conspiracy implies self aware purpose. LOL --don't make me laugh, you species of talking monkeys.

Society certainly is a machine of have and have not creators and doers in a caste structure, glued together with conformity instincts and unwitting brainwashing. But it is no more a conspiracy than a hive colony or body metabolism is. Group symbiosis --like shit-- just happens.

2) the only real conspiracy I have ever seen is wimmins activist types. They do have each other on speed dial and "in the know" selective mailing lists (and before that rolodex) and call each other to plan "action items" and campaigns regarding the latest political football bouncing by in heavy rotation loop (eg OJ hacking his insanity-inducing slut or mothers drowning snot factories or whatever).

3 or 2B) Conspiracy is totally legal --out in the open-- though 'conspicuously ignored'-- and the _point of america by design_: A vested interest pressure group getting involved to create change (for that vested interest pressure group). What could be more american than that?

When one factors in that the fem pressure groups are rooted in a form of superstition and are trying to create heaven on earth through revolution, the whole disgusting thing absolutely drips with Americanism.

Indeed it's america.

==============

The domestication-of-man model --"domestication" like a barn animal bred from a free wolf-- is the way man has developed but that scheme itself is not self aware. It is "emergent" like chemical crystallization in rocks. Multi cellularism is the way of the universe.

And note the way that model starts: brutal primitive simplistic domination-desire and slavery. It is because of that that man snowballs to more complex systems (like multi cellular domestication). (Which I call emergent domestication and you call [self aware, purposeful] people farming.)

The only solution is space travel. That way "micro communities" can be _indefinitely_ apart from each other and thus stop large scale "emergent multi cellular" "people farming".

nr1) Yes a long way away. Yes we need some kind of organized opposition long before that. (I was-- in a around about way --trying to make the point that individualism can't work _without true self sufficiency far away from the hive_.)

nr2) I meant spreading out forever on self sustaining _vehicles_, going as fast as anyone could ever possibly go (300K km/sec) --therefore always being one step ahead of the hive... which man himself drags behind him tied to his ankle as he flees. If we just spread to other near earth platforms and set up shop then _yes_ 'la machine' will catch up and do its thing.

...Just like it did when it caught up to (and "absorbed" [ala star trek]) the anglo/euro world colonial frontiersmen et al (with their freedom and rights jibba jabba which still echoes and grips minds to this day...).

...Just like it --la machine [ie multi cellularism]-- did in pond scum billions of years ago. (There's the real 'conspiracy'. And it is inevitable, non self aware and indifferent.)

=========

We/I have not written conspirac-ism off out of hand. We understand how it is fruity with its belief in SPECTRE boogeymen and how the solutions offered don't address very important aspects of human behavior.

Further to have conspiracism advocates be so `off in their understanding of how things work causes smarter people to call them "batshit".

========

BAD ARGUMENTS CONSERVATIVES MAKE

Conservatives shoot themselves in the foot with the cross purposes nonsense about how they don't want the state imposing it's rules on private institutions, thereby hamstringing equality demands from the right /men. Take colleges. Cons won't make 9when they have scant power) them actually adhere to state rules of anti discrimination and juris prudence.

Note the state's "rules" are the constitution [as is now and upheld by conservatives]. The conservatives drop bombs on other countries so as to impose these rules on those private institutions.

That nonsense is the reason [college etc] gets away with the anti male hate speech, hypocrisy and anti juris prudence this-that-and the-other things.

The conservatives --_the only other party and philosophy in our failed two party system_-- and their absolute failed notions prevent serious legal contest to policies that discriminate against white people and men.

===========

ERRONEOUS STATEMENT: "The "bad feminism" began in the 60s."

That data observes when sparks occurred on the road but it doesn't note the car's motor turning over no less the car's production.

========

I hate this non productive "shes ugly" or "fat" as a way of stopping it. (As though most of you aint limp dick sweaty palm "creeps".) Pointing out that feminism is the side effect of wallflowers is one thing**. But calling them names is the exact opposite thing we need to do: they will just toughen their resolve to get back at you --the projections of those that made them cry when they were little. (**Solution = Everyone needs to be made the same so as to stop reactionary-ism which is the root of all politics.)

I see it occas.

Interesting to note I usually say it about the dudes in politics. Things like "there is no way that is a sapien skull" or "look at that neotenic specimen" and etc. It doesn't work at stopping it. But again it might allow us to understand whats going on here at the root: reactionaries from childhood loss. (Solution = Everyone needs to be made the same (or fatal dueling in kidhood, without dynastic privilege-to-shirk. But does anyone really want that?).

Yes females are vapid and they're part of vapid gossip /celebrity culture. Yes they say deceptive nonsense--probably rooted in their instincts to control the village and trick and test men --such as "isn't she perfect". Yes, point that aspect of it out if you must. But the whole "no skanks/fatchicks, man" is not a politic that will fly ever.

Nobody asked you to date her.

==============
Explain the mechanism for how hundreds of millions of western men all just move to eastern Europe and flirt with defacto _WHORES_, without the mechanism of western culture catching on and stopping them one way or another. And why won't the same la machine beast --caste structure of government-controls-- just form over in Romania/Czech etc?

That demand for explanation also doesn't even address how all the western male losers just up and get the where with all in the first place --both the gumption and filthy lucre-- to even get that ball rolling.

What you have with your "solution" is a religious persons "aw shucks" goal:

"The bible lifestyle is a good idea. If only people would follow it."

"Capitalism is a good idea if only people would let it work."

"Starving out the beast --la machine-- by running away is a good idea if only everyone could do it and not have the beast follow them."

That caveat at the end there of course is the definition of a bad idea.

------------

The ending of black US slavery was not achieved through the underground railroad, regardless of how many blacks made it to mexico to become 'free' ranch hands. It was achieved through political organizations that murdered and waged planet wide embargoes and wars.

=================

Give me a television satellite and political power over the military for a few years and we'll see if it is me or a clique of rich people looking for tax shelters --by donating to the approved list of charities (a list made by pols and sanctioned by the TV addicted masses) --that has more power.

Not to mention that clique of rich people is not a big shadowy secret. We all know who they are. _And their group interaction and activism is democratic republicanism verbatim; it is not against the constitution--it IS the constitution (which is an inherently contradictory and ill thought through document)._

Regime change is the only solution. And it is going to take lots of tuned-in power (ultimately threats and murder and other egg breaking tactics); not self atomizing. See Germany 1920-40. (Note the krauts were way less religious --ie less delusional by nature-- had fewer coups against their own militant [ie masculine] culture in their history and are probably just smarter too. We have a hard road ahead...)

___________________________________
==================================
Jebus etc

This is why men haven't been able to win: the christians and liberals are the same --they are natural allies(always have been). They are both dumbass havens filled with those who lie and use 'yuck factor' propaganda to get their way.

The christians' vocab-list being out of fashion, causes their yuck factor propaganda to be denounce-able as transparent more often.

============
Does this god have activist power to perform miracles in the fabric of existence that is 'his' mighty cause and effect ness?

And is he aware of himself and any of this?

If not, why call it god?

If it does have this power to "shazam" at will then through what mechanism is cause and effect suspended for "him"?

(Note I give you extra points if you are able to explain how quantum mechanics is a loop hole for god's activism. Meanwhile cause and effect deterimism (planned out in the beginning by a god OR not) negates a role for an activist god. The extra credit only comes if you understand how that understanding right there turns on its ear the big physics dialogue of the early 20th century, between the cause and effect based Einstein and quantum mechanic Bohr et al. ...And I quote Einstein "God does not play dice with the universe" (putting his foot down). But Einstein's cause and effect actually negates a role for god, while quantum mechanic-funny-business (which has been glibbly /falsely called "playing dice") potentially creates loop hole opportunities that the mighty torturer in the sky can use to fuck with his creation in ways that don't apparently thwart observed cosmic determinism. A 200 IQ bouncer from Long Island is writing a book about that but he can't seem to finish it. And no it ain't me --I don't believe in no loving god.)

And why call this caprice of change ("miracles") omnipotence? If "he" needs to change his plan all the time at the behest of the whining of somebody down on earth who cries to him about the cancer _god gave em_ 16 billions years ago when god planned it all out then god isn't very powerful or based in forethought.

I wish this holy cock sucker would make up his mind. Is little Timmy suppose to suffer and die of cancer or isn't he? God, make up your fucking mind, you ditzy woman.

==================

God isn't real. So liberals killing off god is beside my point. Conservative types (not pro male rightists BTW) call the Soviet Union liberal. They say "Sovs don't believe in god and therefore they are "liberal"". This is a childish simplistic way of looking at the world: The convoluted god thing being the be all end all of all assessments of society and things.

The liberal agenda is about acting out benchwarmer stress from childhood failure; it is ostensibly about solving "problems"[tm]. Problems are relative opinions of observed **amoral contingencies. [**That's another thing: STOP USING 'AMORAL' WHEN YOU MEAN 'IMMORAL'.]

Note that along with liberals _conveniently_ ignoring the nature of relativism, "apparent" and "absolute" (incorrect and correct) are further being ignored by them in their opinions of what the "problems" are. For example wimmin being disciplined for or prevented from cheating is not a "problem" (but liberals say it is); men being disposable (and mocked while it happens) always throughout history and continuing even throughout the enlightened western period --while this fact is studiously ignored, even by those who specifically rally to solve problems of the "little man"-- is a "problem".

I say "ostensibly about solving problems" because the problem-solving thing is just demagoguery [popular mistruths] so liberals can get into power (by using useful idiots [eg christians(gullible wishful thinkers)] rallied up by touchy feely or yuck factor protectionist propaganda (long since selected as optimum at cajoling simple minded wishful thinking types) and then once in power get _back at_ those they believe are the cause of their pain --the [projections of] "winners" from childhood.

[That paragraph size sentence above there is horrible even for me. If someone can figure out how to say it better, there will be bonus points for you.]

The liberal solutions for solving 'problems" do little more than pass hot potatoes around; they replace the latest playah, but it doesn't stop the game. "Here come the new boss same as the old".

And the other reason liberals make bad assessments of what the problems are or how to solve them is they have aptitude shortcomings in some categories (but generally not creativity). The very reason they were childhood benchwarmers in the first place.

In liberalism's defense, no one has really tried to step outside of it all and truly solve anything yet and everybody is susceptible to hubris --blind to others' woes-- once they win at life. But that still doesn't mean liberals shouldn't be called on their BS.

=========

Why is the fetus the be all end all of your agenda?

What if we outlawed abortion but still let the female cheat and cuckold? Would that be okay? If it's not, then how does "sanctity of the fetus" address those other things we want stopped?

Say someone like me got into power and outlawed female dalliance and etc mind fuck shit tests but allowed medical procedures that "terminated a fetus". Pretend the "other party" was going to outlaw abortion but let the female engage in those other mind fuck behaviors delineated in the previous sentence. Which party would you back?

Do you believe the fetus feels and thinks like you do or even a dog or cat does?

=================

So what is wrong with killing things?

How does keeping things alive help men stop females?

How many different things should we keep alive?

The measure should be "pain" not "death". Stop pain (including psychological) not killing.

At any rate,
Fetii don't feel the pain. Badly raised children do.

There is the savagery that needs to stop.

Simple actually.

Why can't you advocate controlling the female --ie forcing "responsibilities" on her-- but without the nonsense 'sanctity of the fetus' jebus cult jabba?

Watch, I'll get you rolling...

"Pro abortion and Against a wimmin's right to choose."

================

I'm an atheist but I'm not a "matriarch".

There is no god. Cause and effect negates a role for an activist god. And nature is so red in tooth and claw by nature that any god that envisioned it and lets it all happen shouldn't be begged mercy from or called our god.

There is no god.

There is only war. "We" must keep the wrong types from living. You want a culture worth living in? You have to breed for it. It is just like selecting certain puppies from a litter. That is what prevents these problems from even getting started.

=================
feminist websites and the like... I wouldn't spend a moment reading any of that. I don't know why men do that.

============

This is a key, key, KEY thing.

No matter how disenfranchised most men are; no matter how many pea-covering mattresses men give princess while most men sleep on the floor, no many how many tariffs men carry; no matter how cruel, manipulative, deceitful _and etc_ females are to us, so long as men don't "squat to pee" fems (and allies--the natural effete) will cry "foul" on instinct.

Females are simply `angsty over men themselves. They have "lumps in the throat" of attraction and desire. They want to get back at us to take the "power back" of "crush" they feel when they see a hairy chest and healthy "package". (But at the same time they desire these things in men too --and are wistfully cruel if they don't get them. It is all ungrappled with contradiction in their wee heads.)

The actual political arguments feminism made and continues to make or glom on to are all just grabbed at BS: anything they can say that will work at "getting men back" (for simply being better and thus triggering an angst of desire) as they vent the real --though unspoken-- issues inside their heads (the "lump in throat").

Pro fem exploits the class warfare vocabulary stoked up by the morality of democracy and marxism politics (alpha beta gamma protectionist demagoguery) of the last few centuries. This is true, even though females were already over privileged by the laws that the _male_ revolutions were addressing. (Also female humans were outside of the male laws just as female deer are outside of male deer antler-battles, for male deer aren't hurting females with their antlers; antlers are for hurting other males with the females as the wistfully pirouetting catalysts.)

This exploiting of the vocab of democracy et al --that the "common wisdom" set has long since instinctually conformed to-- is why people like me say democracy morality itself is the culprit: it is creating the underlying social ethos that females (an other unscrupulous types) use to vent their unspoken though real motivations. And because of the large upside-down-world problem that democracy creates, nobody of status-quo-changing status is able to actually contemplate these angsts and crypto motivations.

==========

Most men are way more dangerous than worthless. _They are the backbone of why this hypocrisy happens._ And it is pure bio determinism.

============
Expecting the females to not be hypocrites is like expecting the rain not to be made of water.

Wet stupid people stand in the rain and try to reason it all out with the rain. Smart wet people look to see who tore the roof off the house.

Who tore the roof off?...

That'd be the men.

And then smart men see how to put another one up there.

...Death to democracy. And "eugenics" Now. (Note 'eu' and 'dys' are relative constructs.) All made possible through a strong government that achieves power through a bloody civil war that kills and 'oppresses' most men.

There you go: solution. All other blabber is fighting the wind.

Solutions

2010-09-02T13:53:00.007-04:00

I walk the line, for you... bab-bee.
A thousand miles..., for you.
[I think I'm all out of fair use there.]

____________________________
=========================

SOLUTIONS

A basic principle is amoral determinism. [Indifference and cause and effect.] All that law and constitution and all that jazz is just bullshit for the small minded and con artists.

===========

Men defining themselves as dogs for women's sleds... It is important that men break away from that mind set. It is that mind set that under girded, allowed and promoted feminism originally (mixed with jewish occupational explotive political triangulations with the fems against the the host culture males). It is what under girds it now.

===============

You want to stop liberal stuff?

Okay then you have to stop american "freedom" horseshit first. All that capitalism nonsense and that christ absurdity and the romanticizing the founders and all that republican hooey needs to be dead.

Then liberalism dies that instant.

The reason liberal hypocrisy thrives is because that which is embraced as oppositional to liberalism is actually the pillar structure of liberalism. Always has been. But apparently people are too brain dead to get that. Very curious.

=========

The conservatives are good dumb-beast sacrifices that will help us get dems and liberals (where thought [sometimes grand] and policy comes from) over to our side.

At the very least, why would any thinking --or yes even feeling-- man want to tie himself to that anchor [that is head in hole conservatism and easily demonizable greed]?

==============

How much do you have invested in this system? Male conformity/honor-duty compulsion is all. The system itself is to blame, not any one policy or administration.

============

Liberals should note that there is no reason to liberate female dalliance tendency and their stupidty just to lessen the breeding of idiots. Note population as a whole has increased during female emancipation; just like rampant sexual objectification (of both genders) has. Also other deemed wrongs that were supposed to be solved by liberalism have.

Why can't we control population growth and keep females from cheating (and etc stuff) too?

Same for jebus cult: why is the only way to stop female leverage deemed none self aware kiss-it-up-to-god-ism?

Shooting people in the face would reduce birth rates too. Or as Monty Python said "having your balls removed" would too. So would a lot of things.

=============
If you want to create a good breed you have to cull for it.

But because jebus culture is such a _disaster of moronic thumb sucking gits, no one gets that_.

============
There should be only female intel field operatives. Same with only female cops and firemen and helicopter pilots and the like. Oh and only female aircraft carrier commanders.

Death to democracy.

==============
I say bio tech to make everyone the same. And a protectionist plank platform in order to win power enough to get there. Note that "Individualism"/colonialism/entrepreneurial ism/ etc' will never win power against protectionism; ever. Never has and never will. (And humans are inherently in protectionist bands; they are called tribes/troops.) There are various profound reasons for why individualism/capitalism becomes part of a _false dichotomy two party system_ and for why 'we' pretend that it is oppositional to the culture it carries but it has never held sway in any of the approx one HUNDRED countries it has been advocated in even once.

=============

Someone needs to make a kennedy-like speech about getting the next great task done. (I'm not addressing whether or not kennedy is good or a fraud. I mean the galvanizing speech towards big aim.) Instead of the moon launch or bombing 3rd world anti fem it needs to be about genome research and etc bio tech and starting to solve the human condition for everyone.

It is good and important that male studies is trying to get off the ground; I'm not confident though--either its ability or sincerity/honesty. Men's perspective is key, key, crucially needed in solving these woes; It needs to necessarily contradict and CO -OPT the female rap. (Garner sympathy from but at the same time assert how bad that garnering is, given the tendency females have towards discriminatory blood thirsty (true) shit test game playing, where they hate male weakness like males hate female back hair.)

=============

IQ 120s are the oligarchy of modern society; the middle men.

Using the horde of hapless 110s and 100s (and the crude and probably supra vicious 90s) --rallied up through protectionism--to get rid of the oligarchy of liars and con artist who have taken over in the last few centuries (the true beta males of the previous species we come from) would end "liberalism" where it lives.

You don't understand because you --ALL OF YOU-- don't get the alpha beta gamma thing I started. It is not about one's studliness at the thumpa thumpa club (steady girls). It is about the general caste structure of this species as lensed through our understanding of primates. Our species is in a caste structure of IQ 130-145s then IQ 115s to 130s an then IQ 100ish at the bottom. The middle class (115s -130) there has used protectionist demagoguery so as to rally the 100s against the the 137ish thus turning our world upside down.

The jew migrants --ie the "marxist"-- were relevent, in that they were the main 120 something protectionist demagogues --the recent beta along with the upper irish-- who ousted the order of the previous 19th century era. ...And now academia is "marxist", with the "darwinists" all since fired. You types don't know that stuff because it all happened over your heads for class reasons; meaning you aint got none.

So when I say "get rid of the 120s" I mean get rid of the modern western oligarchy --the pretenders to the thrones of authority. The "beta" (whether or not they "pull" cunt at the club); whether they have good jobs and game or not.

Also there is no way to get rid of the majority outright (90-110 makes up about 65 % of the culture!): the majority must be used (ie rallied through protectionism) to oust the ruling class (of 120ish sophist conspirator demagogues who ousted the darwinists who were and are smarter).

Then Transhumanism will happen. Tough titties. There is no way to get around the fact that christianity --especially protestant nuttery--is doomed (and has been for centuries) no matter whether marxism or darwinism prevails here. These cult nutjobs HIDING in the stycks that we call america might try to keep their heads up their asses but it isn't impressing anyone. It has however prevented the "darwinists" from keeping the snowballing liberal zeitgeist coup (regardless of "party") out of power.

=============

Fem says: "The desire to lower the age of consent is so they can mold the knave to their liking."

What's wrong with molding the girl?

People are molded from knaves all the time. It is what school is for. It is what TV is for. It is what the family is for. And it is what the modern single fem family does.

What specifically is the problem with molding young girls to be more submissive to, loyal to and respectful towards men?

How does one stop feminism without such a program?

===============

...The arbitrary unfairness of ignoring lovers of the same age when one is more manipulatively self aware and vengeful then the other. The laws about consent are ostensibly there to protect the naive from the wolf; but it is more often than not that the naive is a teen boy being played* by his cheating girl (who is often a few years younger than him --by her choice).

(*"played" = emotionally abused pretty severly actually. We just don't accept this as truth while at the same time telling the boys to suck it up.)

===============

Are you 'morally' prepared to kill off the men and females who create feminism?

Are you prepared to create state/church/institutionally mandated tariffs to keep the pro fem type of [nature/nurture created] male and female from forming again?

=======================

It is fine to learn, girl.

But then... your penance is to dissuade other men out there of their whiteknighting tendencies by making them understand that wimmin are not pristine, faultless fallen angels (in what ever category-of-the-day is being discussed); that females have an assortment of instincts and thus can be very cruel, deceptive, manipulative, non self aware, childish and downright abusive in many categories.

Then go ye forth and sin no more.

===========
The fathers should have trump card say.

It is all part the american anti authority thing that compels us otherwise. We won't be young forever, you know: we become fathers eventually.

If we take power away from the ho and power away from the father, who is left? The 19 year old's penis --and the mawms [adult wimmins]. Sounds similar to what we have now.

============

"Human rights" is --just like equality and ALL OF THE OTHER RIGHTS BLABBER --just made up nonsense created by the runt moralists so as to get rid of the better males from childhood.

=============
Many simply need to be dead _for being the wrong package of modules (compulsions)_ (like getting rid of dog strains from the litter that are not desired, so as to create a better breed). That isn't happening because of capitalist democracy and chrisendumb.

=============
Testing and sterilizing those below say IQ 120 solves most problems.

Eugenics now!

Protectionism to achieve power. Political theartah (symbols and such) so as to rally the conformist horde/ military muscle. Then impose your policies --Testing and sterilization of the dolts. (This isn't rocket science.)

=================
Early on the females should have been banned from our "thought space" rather than given their own space and having men's space be communal.

=======
INFIDELITY

The knowing party(ies) should be accountable for infidelity only. A dupe trying to get laid didn't do anything wrong or disrespectful to the jilted boyfriend/husband.

The males who can't grasp that --the ones who need to vent on the nearest male-- need to be _culled out_.

===========
RE: STONING

If you infantilize society you stand the chance of liberating females(who are repulsed by and prone to dominate infantiles).

The females will then cheat rampantly "legally". Then "80 percent of the females will be doing 20 percent of the dudes." Females will be self entitled, oblivious to and unreachable about this and the boys will still do the work and be told to just shut up and go along.

That is the quandry that arises when stopping the old ways.

------------
And the commentators are confused over what to do to stop stoning.

You breed for new modules as far as getting rid of the sadists.

You'll still need to cull for cheaters too then.

For both cullings, use lethal injection to eliminate. Or personality controlling chemicals to change.

============
--------------------
============

There is no such thing as a world without "social Darwinism".

There is such a thing however as self awareness or ignorance. The "anti Darwinists" would have us all be ignorant of how things actually work.

================

[Question by someone:] "Is there a balance between shutting women in their homes and giving them license to wreck society and trample on the lives of those around them?"

No, there is none. Dimorphic sexuality is emasculation(thus creating creating females); And then consequenting female hyper value.

Dem's the facts. (Censored, convoluted-up, tortured and just plain squashed as they are.)

[Question by someone:] "I suspect that this will be one of the most difficult questions to answer, and we may have to put a great deal of effort into working it out."

The destiny is quite simple:

The under health males kept alive by human material success will continue to triangulate with females as their way of getting rid of the healthier males from childhood. Once that is achieved (as it has been in the west for all intents and purposes) the new 'social sexual dynamic' (ie "mating ritual" or mating dance /display) created between the runt males and the "liberated" females (liberated by the elimination of the healthy who previously kept the females in line /emasculated) will be a male immolation dynamic of one stripe or another as payment to fem sex value (ala praying mantis like or etc).

One way or another, males will pay to fem sex value: either males will kill each other off in battles created by fem sex value and then the winner males (his wide-lens libido) will pick and emasculate [ie "rape" or "child molest" if you will] females (thus creating females in the process, for more softwired organisms, eg mollusks or etc); or the males will protect themselves from those culling battles by giving the power of choice to the females --who will then "eat" (take energy from, in one way or another) the winner males.

Eventually if the neo cortex survives (which might be doubtful, since females and runts don't really have it) gender itself will be eliminated in favor of hermaphrodites or Asexual clones.

And even without any of that, Mankind or "humanity" will voluntarily replace itself --numbers wise--with machines. (Meaning silicon and iron and such rather than the types of machines that organisms are already.) The reason it will be "voluntarily" (rather than a robot coup, ala Hollywood) is those machines will make much better progeny (tools of war --the 'spearheads' of the multi generational lances-- against the other lineages) than the biologic types we rely on now to pull it all off and carry it all on.

All of that has been going on since before Rome but really ramped up after Rome's fall and the jesus cult diaspora. I know you all think I'm crazy or mean or such. But I'm simply smarter than you --I see more clearly than you : You all lack layers of cerebrum; meaning it's like you're color blind and the electromagnetic phenomenon called green simply can't trigger your "green receptor color cones"(molecules on the retina) which respond to the electromag contingency-- "green" -- `cause you ain't got green receptors.

Ie you is dumb.

===========
We need to convince civilization's mechanism (specialists) to try and make men equal at the biological level [enter the machine clone progeny?] --because men are the true victims of society (always have been --that's why men are as strong as they are) and redistribute the real wealth --_pu$$y_-- which is the core wealth that motivates all the other competition, "inequality" and disparity, pain and suffering between men.

Men are not fighting over money: they are fighting over pu$$y. Money is simply an abstract measuring stick for seeing who's next in line to get some.

So long as Free Range Pussy exists there will never be "equality" between men. Pu$$y would never stand for it!

But if we could get men the same and pussy in check, well...

It is like that Steve Martin caveman bit from the old Saturday Night Live. After the hunt he says, (and this is all paraphrase from memory) "listen instead of just eating the thing why don't we save it and catch another one tomorrow and then we can mate them and have a steady supply of food forever? This way we will have free-ed up energy that will allow us to do great things: build structures and invent and then develop profound philosophies that allow us to truly understand it all since we won't just be chasing these things[food] around all day every day."

The dumb thick and furrow browed chief looks at him and goes "you smart. We will sleep now and think more on this tomorrow."

The tribe all turns to go set up their sleeping spots.

Loraine Neuman is one of the cave bitches; absurdly thick browed. She stayed behind by Steve Martin CaveMan as the others were turning to leave and she goes to him "duh, um... you make me wet." [big laugh]

The dumb chief who had already turned to leave but was still in ear shot sees this and he is not happy.

Steve nods 'oh, thank you' or similar to Loraine cave bitch. They then-- Loraine and Steve-- turn to go with the others.

The tribe is asleep now. Steve Caveman is asleep at his spot.

The chief sneakily gets up from his spot and skulks over to where Steve is sleeping. He then proceeds to bash Steve CaveMan in the head with a rock until dead.

The chief then stands, pounds his chest and goes "And now I am smart".

And... scene!

-------------------------
Well if we could get FRP (free range pussy) in check, we wouldn't have to chase these things(Pu$$y) around all day. That would free up energy to... to do great things...

Like replace ourselves with machines.

Or just sit in a pile of filth and fuck our in-check nieces all day...

So there you go. Simple.

Good luck.

==============

"Equality for Men is not something that should ever be desired, any more than Equality between the sexes.

Both ideas are expressions of the same Liberal Revolt agaisnt Reality, and the same perverse mental illness."

Inequality between men is the reason they fight. That fight has LED INEVITABLY to LIBERALISM and FEMINISM.

To prevent that from happening --after 'we' win the war to stop lib and fem (as if)-- the root problem itself has to be solved.

You are simply a very primitive thinker. ...Reason number 6 thousand, 4 hundred and fifty 2 you should be in alliance with islam against the likes of me. But you can't get yourself out of the tangles that have confused you all.

==============

The so called rebelling minorities of the 60s were not white adult men trying to upset the pu$$y status quo of the elites. The "rebels" were the equivalent of the children, wives and pets of the ruling class. They got away with it and were given things for the same reason a crying baby or begging puppy does and is.

"This won't be won politically. A revolution is needed."

Correct.

Grand triangulations and realignments...

The N koreans; and chinese; islam; domestic black; and the latest ethnics.

Keep the GOP --the muscle and wallet of liberalism --out of power. The liberal big tent will then faction along internal fissures. The us --and britn (brit to US : Greece to Rome)-- will be unable to impose anywhere and will shrink and then implode hopefully under external pushes.

But that simply gets us --mankind-- back to zero. Next time the "problem" itself needs to be solved once and for all.

...Our understanding of determinism --Nature, Darwinism-- or whatever you want to call it-- allows us to get to the root of it all...

Female sexual value and 'Alpha beta gamma coup d eta' rooted in have and have not and loss. (I've explained it many times.)

======================

Can you give some examples on how shifting the reasoning would work?

When fem says "77 cents on the dollar" I say back "the only reason men work at all is to balance out female sexual value."

That won't work at first BECAUSE THE ANGLO WORLD (AMERICA) IS DEEP DEEP DEEP WITH _THUMB SUCKING RETARD GITS_ ("MEN" and christians I believe are the polite terms). But if you keep at it --as I have for the last 15 years-- eventually you RETARDED THUMB SUCKING GITS catch on to how naturalism works.

Another: Libs scream how many wimmins aren't allowed abortions (which in an of itself is a lie); I say back that there aren't enough abortions yet.

Another... Feminists and git pyscho-babble masculinists say "females are hurt by 'social symbols' (eg Gilligan's Island's Maryanne in short-shorts causes females to be too dumb to go to NASA)." I say back males are far worse off than females[bullet list enters here which I don't do] and since we are to believe social signals have power to create 'nurture syndromes' inducing underachievement than we have to accept that there are hurtful to boys symbols coming from on high (which we have _obvious evidence for everywhere_ unlike the bald face lie that females are under siege from "patriarchal symbols") . And also females are just naturally dumb for genetic reasons; genes _selected_ by our tribal past. ([Followed up by: "I aint looking for votes and I don't believe in the democracy equality gibberish.")

Fems stats about violence and etc. I say "those are liberal protected groups (ethnics and poor) not the white patriarchy. And those stats are evidence for how democracy is bad --ie how men are NOT equal-- not evidence for how men are bad and wimmins (golden, no doubt [sarc]) deserve special one-up privileges." ("Not to mention liberal hypocrites stereotype men with a broad brush and then advocate unconstitutional discriminatory policy.") (Not that I would lower myself to even wiping my ass with the constitution and the like.)

And etc etc.

Basically just watch the way I've done it here (when I have energy to engage).

Tanks and planes blow open stuck trench warfare debates.

I don't know if it will work.

I do know that western Anglo Conservationism HAS NOT worked.

Testing and sterilization. (Or water posioning and etc.)

We have too many git males that used to die but now thrive.

That is why feminism INEVITABLY happened.

my "alpha beta gamma principle" tries to explain.

We have snowballed over the generations into a place (through AlphaBG coup cycles), where masculine behavior --which creates and controls fem behavior--is taboo/"criminal". It is that that is emboldening the females; ie that which is creating "feminism".

=============

Females are not intellectually and physically equal with males.

They are the key catalysts for competition (and the consequent stress, pain and suffering, and disparity).

They have childish manipulative, deceptive, two faced, secretive, discriminatory, complain-based* characters. (*cracking-the-whip technique.)

They are way over privileged under the law --and always have been.

Dim sex is an emasculation battle.

There is no such thing as equal or any of that modern cult talk.

None of that is "hatred."

As I tried to explain earlier, understanding yucky truth[tm] is not sociopathy; _creating solutions that accept the yucky truth as starting point is not sociopathy._

Well the same goes for pu$$y and this misogyny/hatred cry. Accurate interpretation of society, history, mating dance and female character and aptitude --and the history of dim sex itself-- is not "hatred". Likewise creating solutions that accept that yucky truth as starting point is not hatred.

(Or if you must, hatred has its roll: self defense. I "hate" it when a bear mauls me; I kind of hate the bear. Tying up a bear is not "hatred". (I don't actually believe in cruelty to animals. But that is not the point. The point is the animal is bad and needs to be tethered. It is not "hate" when the mauled attempt tethering.))

"Morality" demagoguery (eg denouncing people who see clearly as 'sociopaths' or 'haters') has always been the way nerds/monks have controlled and shaped society over to their liking.

Indeed psycho babble diagnosis --ie made up nonsense which is just pulled out of the ass-- is the way the latest runtdom/monkdom (called liberalism) controls society now.

===================

I believe we need more "sociopaths".

Sociopathy being an arbitrary construct...

Yes bio chemistries are recognizably different. But the definitions of "criminally insane" and sociopathy or anything like that are ARBITRARY. There is no such biological diagnosis. It is purely legalistic political funny business that by purposeful legalistic design ignores existential (surrounding issue) prerequisites.

Observe: I believe it is sociopathy to NOT abort. I believe the biochemistries that CAN'T see it that way ARE recognizably biologically different from "good people"; I deem these bio types criminally insane sociopaths. It is sociopathy to let idiots breed.

=================

We shouldn't forfeit the protectionism planks when they are the only ones that have ever won power in any system no less a system that has institutionalized demagogic protectionism.

=================

Why give the females a pass on the root discrimination that motivates all the competition and have and have-not in the world when the female movement doesn't allow the same discrimination against ugly chicks without making it a battle cry ["looks-ism" and "objectification"] and demanding change which specifically seeks to take away that male power to discriminate --even though males are already instinctually less discriminatory than the females in this very catagory of who fucks who?

Why give the female whole a pass when they do not reciprocate in kind? Indeed males ignoring the wall flowers is the original impetus for this wave of "la femme mystique" in the last 150 years we call feminism.

============
MESSAGE TO GIRLIES:

You have had sex with a man?

Meaning you get off on a man fucking you doggy style holding your hips and telling you he is going to cum ("so hold still you little creature") while you give a guttural moan into the pillow your face is in as he fills you?

If you don't want that, you understand that you are rare right? What are you going to do with all the people who do like it that way?

And if you do like it that way, saying well "that is just sex--I meant submit in social and political, legal type circles" is not good enough. The reason it is not good enough is most of your female libido is psychological. You get off on the whole scene not just the acute physical (this is wrong?). If the creature fucking you is not someone you respect (and I mean respect as a "better" an authority figure --not just some goofy word from a song) you won't be liking him enough or liking him using you like that.

And also (and this is important), if the male isn't prevented from being a creature who is better than you by the state, he naturally will be better often [except runts, which I want to ameliorate through tech]. But if the state is preventing men from being better, then it is making them submit.

So men will be submitting. Therefore your whole "nobody should submit to anyone" thing is empty, ill thought through nonsense. Especially ill thought through when one factors in that as the state prevents men from naturally displaying in ways that normal females desire, the female will start shunning them and/or moving in to treat them dominantly.

So how can females not submit to men in a system that doesn't coerce men into submission? How can wimmin be free from this submission to men without a state that makes men submit?

Again, your whole "nobody should submit to anyone" thing is empty and ill thought through.

...The female human is a non sentient child. That is my professional diagnosis. The stuff that comes out of her mouth just sounds like words, so as to trick men into providing for her expert parasitism (like a baby).

females are not broad minded, outside looking in thinkers. More like colicky babies on instinct. They will cry till the milk is gone or somebody plays deaf to them and lets them cry themselves out one time.

Do you really believe that female humans are intellectuality and physically "equal" with the best men? If not --ie if you do believe wimmin lack something some men have-- should the female submit to those men?

===========
I do know the 'devil is in the details'. ...Sitting right next to the females and the specialists.

Ethnics (?)

2010-08-20T13:51:00.003-04:00

The whole China abortion thing...

Yes, it seems that the Chinese didn't think it [population control] through, when it comes to gender ratios.

But the important part is that they thought about it at all.

That is what separates them from the US led west.

They didn't kiss it up to make believe forces (ie god) or ask the confused horde (after the horde has been cajoled by various questionably anti social interests [media/"activists"] who strain the idea of equality/freewill/choice to say the least). They observed their population trend and resource (food supply) trend and attempted an Age of Reason, enlightened solution to a problem. It was not enlightened enough apparently. (Note that solution [population reduction] is what prevents them from invading you.)

-The baby(fetus) itself doesn't feel anything. And there is always Lidocaine etc. (Which we should demand be used!)

-And Chinese abortion is not like western birth control [modern abortion being simply the latest trick in that bag] where the capricious girl is given the power to put more "notches in her lip stick case" (ie given more power to mind fuck and play "games" with the men in her life). It is state policy, not a girl's mind-fuck shit test unlike in the "free" west.

---------
The American right is far to the left of Chinese society (as amer right is to the left of the russian sovs too). Simplistic nationalist conformity impulse (of you all-- the confused horde) prevents you from seeing that [with the useful-idiot-exploiting media laughing all the way to the bank at your expense].

Bad things about the Chinese et al are not abortion or high table attempts to rationally solve contingencies deemed problems(eg population and food trends). Bad things are like the oriental tendency to still torture [though I hate people too, but still]. And I don't like the lead poisoning thing they are (purposefully?) doing. (Though war is war. ...C'est La Guerre... It's a sneaky game america plays too in different ways. All those problems need to be solved at the gate, not just blamed on one or the other.)

==============
The females in islam are being punished LESS severely than the males are. (The whole breed over there is simply rough.)

You simply believe in "pu$$y pass" for all females everywhere and use yuck factor tricks to achieve your ends.

You believe males who don't allow pu$$y pass are "immoral".

===============

The tribal hill people of the world are the victims not the perpetrators. Europe's own romance tales explain this very eloquently (eg Braveheart, last of the Mohecians etc); though people are too dense to get it.

These hill people are being eliminated by the matriarchy that is western culture. The spreading disease.

Those like you are confused useful idiots. You might think you are oppositional to it (the matriarchal herpes sore run amok) --the same as the capitalist nonsense does-- but you are its brainwashed and long since conformed muscle; bred to the bone to be conformed to it --ie domesticated, like a dog breed culled from the wolf.

You all are too simple --ie stupid, genetically-- to get it.

==========

Some German or Austrian Nationalist said it simply: "[it is not islam per se. But it is that they are devoted combatants --the only forth right ones-- to the mammonistic west.]"

Right.

When white men have one tenth the ball sack, then they will be appealed to by the likes of me. For now you're just useful idiots for our actual enemies; enemies you call master --like the bred dogs you are.

A point about traditional western values. When a western traditionalist demagogues against islam he is demagoging against his own traditionalism. He just isn't smart enough to know this. Hence me calling him a useful idiot.

Conservatives are typically at "cross purposes" when it comes to fighting for liberalism's global crusades. But dogs of war are not good at self analysis (as I have explained elsewhere). They simply bark (motivated by instinct to bark at all things). Those that hold the leashes --the domesticators-- get the power that comes from having guard dogs.

If you do your jobs well you will be head patted and then put back in your cages without your nuts.

==========
"traditional western values". ...Which traditional western values? Viking capture and "rape"? Graeco Roman Law(which phase)? American romanticized frontiersmen polygynists and "child molesters"?

I don't have a problem with the above. I don't think traditionalists are "child molesters" or "rapists." But modern western traditions now do say they are. That was the point I was making.

============

The battle cry for western expansion is mostly stuff that is 1970's liberal extremism which has now been conformed to by the dolts of conservatism.

Conservatives resist change until it becomes "common wisdom". Then they embrace it as cosmic truth and impose it with prejudice.

As they are doing to the 3rd world now with napalm.

============

I am sick and fucking tired of people who try to stop feminism by evidencing how it is bad for females. I DON'T CARE IF IT IS BAD FOR FEMALES. Get that whole way of thinking --the trained /bred dog-way-- out of your heads. Then we wouldn't have feminism in the first place. duh.

=========
Here's a thing that is important: conservatives refuse to see that their western traditional values LOST. And by their own hand, they did. They are gone and ain't ever coming back. Never. Especially in this political, economic system.

more more more.

2010-08-20T13:49:00.001-04:00

==============

Rape is already a crime according to American law. American law has evidence procedures and punishments.

The college seeks --the wimmins studies commissars of that college seek-- to go around those procedures laws and punishments. They do this by saying the college is a private club that the accused voluntarily joins. Like a golf club is a private club.

But since college is not just a private club but rather a very publicly funded vector into economic and social etc success, duke can not legally create burdens that go above the surrounding laws of the land --especially if these burdens fall on only certain classes, races and genders more than others.

Remember, rape is already against the law according to american law. This duke thing is not about rape or sexual assault. It is about discriminatorially putting tariffs on men who joined the duke club (a club the college calls private but which is actually a publicly funded institution).

Not to mention the duke "rape" policy's premise is rooted in assumptions which rely on gender behavior _stereotypes_, sexist curricula and sexist interpretations of men and wimmins (sexist, regardless of how well couched) and therefore the premise violates duke's or any colleges' PC hate speech codes. The gender behavior _stereotypes_ and sexist curricula etc which (undergird the duke 'rape' bylaws) create a hostile, discriminatory psychology damaging environment for all men whether accused of a breech of by-law etiquette (eg duke "rape") or not.

Pro fem will say that american society is unfairly stacked against rape accusers and therefore duke "rape" by-laws are necessary since wimmins can't just go to state authority and receive 'justice'. But that is simply a made up contention. (Made up by political activists, note.) There is plenty of evidence that american society is governed by a ceiling painting that is actually very much biased in _favor of females_. It is also irrelevant.

---
[Some dame above] or whoever said "the duke punishments for "rape" are more lenient than the polices'.

Ludicrous sophistry. The duke punishments(confiscating tuition, blackballing from certain career paths etc) are for made up crimes--_NOT RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE_ as rape-- which duke's wimmins studies religion simply calls "rape". Any punishment for duke "rape" is more harsh than any the state COULD impose _since the state couldn't impose any for "duke "rape""_. If a real crime was committed the school would call the state authorities.

----------------
I don't know how to do or even say what I'm getting at above. But that is still the approach one would take when suing. Duke (like any college) favors itself a club which wants people to sign away their constitutional rights; the new rights duke then seeks are unconstitutionally biased based on race and gender. Duke (like any college) pretends it is private and therefore able to create what ever membership criteria it wants. But it is actually a public institution which people must go through to achieve crucial goals which can only be achieved through that institution and also it is publicly funded and therefore subject to the actual laws of the land.

Just like a state can't make a law that subverts a larger federal law, a college can not take away constitutionally protected rights just by hiding behind this shiftable lie that college is a private club.

==================

[A new] plan [to hide the accused rapist's identity] would prevent other victims of serial rapists from coming forward.

Miss Harman said the move would 'turn the clock back' and send a 'devastating message' to rape victims that they should not be believed.

'By making rape defendants anonymous you are going to make it harder to bring rapists to justice.'

feminist pressure groups, ...said it would tip justice and public opinion in favor of the defendants.

Did anyone think to ask her for evidence for those claims?

The answer of course is 'no'.

...Reason number 17 million, six hundred and forty five thousand, 7 hundred and 42 why democracy is no good.

Also the purpose of anglo world juris prudence is not to make it easier for the accuser of any crime. The point is to protect the citizens --especially innocent ones-- from unfair burden and conviction and state tyranny. So therefore even if the bald faced contention by Harmon et al was accurate in and of itself (which it is not and has no legitimate evidence) it doesn't matter anyway for the purpose is to protect the innocent from state power not to make it "easier" for wimmin or any accusers.

Did anyone think to say that in rebuttal to her?

Again, the answer of course is 'no'.

...Reason number 17 million, six hundred and forty five thousand, 7 hundred and 43 why democracy is no good.

=================
=================

.......
A lot of WNs see anything white culture has done as a cosmic-ordained truth that must be spread virulently as god's ordination. (It is all part of the conformity module that makes the conservative male a conservative at the bio determinist level.)

Since feminism (nee chivalry) is a white culture thing it is therefore an example of white "betterness".

(Note that conservatives have now embraced 1970's divorce culture as their white male battle cry, along with other feminist rally-cries such as gender legal appointments etc. Note what the west imposes in iraq and afganistan: female judges shipped in from the west.)

============

[Some conservative guy] saw a Frontline documentary on sex slavery.

Lo fucking L.

Behold a conservative.

ROTFL

What did CNN and MSNBC tell you about sex slavery? Better wait for sweeps month though so you'll get better low angle camera work. You dolt.

------------

You mean "fuck her".

You have conformed to the feminist definition of rape, like the git you inherently are for genetic reasons.

Why should "Men'sRightsActivists" be concerned about that conformity to feminist/chivalrous epistemology: "Rape" [in Capital note, LOL, you dolt].

I'm far more concerned about boys in western culture than whores from the 3rd world. And too boot, the boys in western culture (be they under the single fem parent or in the compulsory eduction system) did not aspire to this system in any way, unlike whores who are low IQ lying whores (probably vicious too --though weaklings) for genetic reasons (similar to your daughter as I mentioned).

Boys are not low IQ whores who aspire to giving blow jobs for a living being catered to by a species that constantly defers to their needs and desires.

You should immolate at once. It is the chivalrous thing to do.

=============

The phony men rights groups are there to trick noobs into falling into the wrong group. It attempts to "hijack" the naive and make them useful idiots.

The phenom is seen with the pro feminist 'men's rights' groups (where males are admonished for not helping females solve their problems), that popped up after real anti feminist men's rights groups started to appear.

=================
People are mostly not self aware; they respond to inner compulsions

===============

That expos`e against aspects of WN doesn't change the fact that the jews are parasitic racists. They exploit the goy as useful idiots accordingly. Whether jews know this or not about themselves and the dynamic they are a part of is irrelevant to the fact that that is the way it all goes down in the eyes of "Darwinism".

I as a white male certainly know about this racism every time I go to a doctor or lawyer or govt building. ...I'd be better off as an Amer Indian going to the cavalry doctor to have my bow arm healed.

And WWII was not fought to stop hitler from "invading the world-in the name racism and eugenics" (falsely defined as "putting people-in camps"). You idiot sheep. Americans and anglos were just as racist as the germans (if not more so) and had a policy of racist culling-expansion long before hitler made one annexation speech about the pined for austro hungarian empire (a living memory grievance from WWI). You dolts for genetic reasons.

(The jew mode average IQ(112?) is higher than the average of whiteness(99)--the moron disaster that classical liberalism (and civilization in general) keeps alive. 112 to 99: Almost 1 standard deviation[ca 15 IQ points] --the same between blacks and whites [blacks at 87, whites at 99]. If white belief is so and so against blacks cause the blacks are dumb what should the whites allow the jews to do to whites, I ask.)

===============

A salient feature about the SC nom is that she is a bushite when it comes to wiretapping and the like (jew hypocrit). This is the 2nd obvious time obama put a chicken hawk in posts: Both that saber rattling ass dick holbreck** (jew) and now her. But I would never ever say she was ugly --she has been hurt enough by the non self aware horde she seeks to get back at. I might say she's got matt broderick's eyes/genes. (And she does.)

(**Obama appointed holbreck on the day obama was sworn in, with special-called press conference about it (a message to someone). Or was it the night he was elected that he held a special press conference about it!!?? Everyone knows I aint the conspiracy monger type but that strains credulity! The republicans won't point it out 'cause they are glad he put a war hawk on the job.)

This frog minister situation... Her salient feature is pure hypocrisy. Painting with a broad brush/stereotyping men; sexism and state run discrimination; denial of core left tenet of "nurture syndromes --often institutional/systemic(ie culture wide prejudices)-- make people the losers they are"; and more hypocrisies I am too weak to see without reading the thing again. Somebody else should point them out, staying on message.

And then there is the media's hypocrisy, where they will black ball a bob metzger (WAR : "white aryan resistance") type outright but then put the prejudiced bigots-towards-men-- feminists-- on the toob saying that it needs to be seen so people will know. BS! Just Black Ball the feminists outright too.

=================
=================

User LSP is very very correct when he says that classical liberalism --capitalism and the utopian runt parade (as though the Georgian court and English parliament back then weren't already runty enough)-- are the root problem and the reason "we" can't get ourselves out of this mess. The fact you all can't see it for yourselves(even after it is explained) doesn't bode well.

=================

...What's the best thing that ever happen to a wimmin's self esteem?... Morning Wood. (Yes you may use that joke for a reasonable remittance of royalty.)

More too.

2010-08-20T13:47:00.000-04:00

Mediocre stuff here. It isn't long for this world.

When a fem deems you rational /acceptable... It comes under the point I made about a dog humping the leg of politeness. The dumb beast can't separate niceness from weakness; she can't tell whether we are "rational" or not-- she lacks the processing power for congenital reasons. Therefore if she thinks we are rational and not "[wimmin] haters" and stuff she means she finds us non threatening. [As such, she will continue to hump.]

Some strains are simply incorrigible and need to be "put down". Even though I am a big proponent of "it's all nurture syndrome", some strains needing to be put down is simply the easy truth. At the very least, in order to make an omelet (ie the future utopia[tm] where we think-all-things-through including nurture syndromes), we need to break a few eggs.

==================

You can't see it the other way. It is female supremacy in its most quaint (and dangerous) form. Princess and the pea.

==================

females cheat rampantly. And they do lots of other things to hurt their mates in relationships. Why doesn't feminism advocate fault based divorce again if the females are under siege in marriage? (ahem, cricket, cricket.)

And "burdensome" is relative construct. The princess complained about a pea 13 mattresses below but it was not really a burden; and babies cry for free milk on instinct. Alas so do wimmin.

And the "current economic welfare of the west" is a huge, huge topic. To just say "it can't exist without wimmin getting these privileges" is balderdash. Number one we don't need this giant "economic welfare". So therefore even if disenfranchising wimmins hurts the west, big deal--GOOD. And number two most of the social expenses of the "economic welfare of the west" are female based; so fewer "independent" females generating western economic welfare equals fewer payoffs to "independent females". Duh. And most of the non social expenses--ie infrastructure and military--are here to make it safe for "independent" females and protect the west from anti feminist enemies.

==========

"...Mothers raise their sons to be creatures that they themselves would not be attracted to if it wasn't their son and rather just some prospective lover…"

This "the product of my female labor belongs to me the female creator" is another empty horseshit thing to say which the cunts and their society have no intention of applying consistently.

Mother raises children badly often and therefore should be prevented from doing it whethee their "property" or not.

=============

I find the single fem environment horrible to the psychological health of male children and the school system also.

==========

A bad vibe she has is: "[the pussy is given out for free these days: be happy [ie don't complain]]"

She is a female supremacist who believes males are dufuses to be manipulated _with impunity,_ controlled and owned.

And ya know what: she is right! After centuries and centuries of western males culling each other based on movements where anybody who was better is vulnerable to ousting, we are left with a culture led by males who are bonobo-like infantile numbskulls and females who are tuned-in, en-fanged top-down above it all types.

(These dames are like me in reverse actually; but I'm a rare throw back _and marginal._ And also these above it all females lack real scope of thought which I have [haughty snort]; they are only wise when it comes to social manipulation of the infantile gitdom that is the west. They don't actually understand anything deep or profound; nor are they self aware.)

_______________
=============

Adoption is often no good. (Trust me I know. My mother is an adopted creature.) Parents need to sense their children; not just feed them and house them. It is one thing to foster a foundling or orphan. But to make more of them --just pretending that the creature will be raised right and their won't be unique problem snowballs multi generationally setting in --is ABSURD.

If all people were clones--aptitude and character wise-- and if parenting was done according to a schematic list (of dos and don'ts in detail) which achieved predicted outcome that could be tested for then maybe adoption and other surrogacy programs could work.

You know what happens when a dumb(95-100), needy labor class German woman (happy to just finally have any "bundle of perfection that can do no wrong") adopts an approx 130 ish IQ manipulative colicky girl?

Hell on earth.

Hopefully I can give you a little taste of Hell before you all die natural deaths. And I do mean that. That's called consequence: something most need to learn first hand.

===============

{I actually do not always hit the target for the same reason a lion doesn't get a tommy gazelle--it's all chase but little meat: we are two different planes of creature.}

=============

Britches.

A mounted aristocracy took over most of north Eurasia in the last 6000 years, as the horse was domesticated. (Some might have found horse proto-domestication as far back as the early teens; Spain. But maybe not ridden. Eaten, like Finland's reindeer?)

Tunics"[barbarians]. "Togas"[civilized]. Kilts [Barbarians Mk 1].

Only worn in conservative (ie old fashion) ceremonies.

----

Penguin Books 'atlases of history' from when I was younger and still gave a fuck about book 'learnin.

New Pearls.

2010-03-27T06:52:00.021-04:00

Since people are dumb and they need to have things said in different ways in order to comprehend them and since this stuff bears repeating, I am posting some more. (Though most everything necessary has already been said.)

____________
============
Cosmic determinism.

Cause and effect domino effects. Nothing mystical.

Domino effects on the scale of hydrogen-cloud(nebulae) collapse (created by some pressure density event [wave]); then stars and their planets; then star ist kaput creating new pressure density events.

Just like with that, there is cause and effect on the planets too. It gets a little more complicated to say the least but it still is simple determinism. Just like the star birth cause and effect --"cosmic determinism".

====================
Dimorphic sex for vertebrates and how understanding that is relevant to 'our' cause...

The point is to keep her stunted.

There is no reason to allow here to mature: she will just masculinize and make trouble for men. Especially make trouble for men who are specifically stunted by modern peace goals. (Peace goals are created by men as their attempted solution to the culling matches female sexual value naturally instigates.) These peace goals between the males cause the males to be bred/culled and trained to be gits so as to make them less threatening to each other.

The females if allowed to mature are _naturally_ triggered into dominance attempts--and other behaviors hurtful to the men of the 'peace bred society'--by the display the 'peaceful' males exhibit.

The more sappy the society makes males the more sappy and stunted the females have to be in order to still be the females.

A little analogy to help the dense understand... If we turn our grizzly bear species into a panda bear species, we have to make sure and make the females into pandas too. If not, the grizzly females--normally dominated by and triggered into submission to the male grizzlies-- will make mince meat out of the panda males.

Note that our society is about to collapse specifically because of a stated and unstated goal to stop "uppity" females. If the liberal males of the last few centuries would have simply stunted the females too along with trying to forge the new peaceful man, their liberal society might have worked. But by not stunting the females --and indeed allowing and prompting female aggression (which is the inevitable side effect of too many git males in her presence)-- they damned their society at its inception.

Most of you are too stupid --for genetic reasons-- to get this simple, simple stuff. Unfortunately.

All our "opinions" about this are not equal (regardless of what your mother tells you). I understand more about the root fundamentals than most. (The fact you all didn't learn these fundamentals for yourselves as you grew is note worthy and a grand indictment of the "age of reason".) As such I see the way it all works in practice better.

----------------------
The other aspect of dim sex and how it is relevant to our struggle is fem sex value...

Females are "more valuable". This is why males are better at everything: Sperm egg ratio is such that a bottle necks forms around the egg. The males battle through this bottle neck; selection only allows some males through thus making them 'better'.

Either male vs male direct aggression is the culling force [eg bears or lion etc] or female choice is the culling force [eg flying birds, insects, some fish etc].

That is fact of Universe.

If you don't like the way that fact is spun at academia or media then you don't advocate suppression of this fact. You advocate murder of the git males (elimination of their bio chemistries) who create the fem empowerment spin.

Killing those git males is ultimately part of your/my reproductive strategy for getting through that bottleneck. As the git's spin of nature _used as deference payment to female vanity_ is their strategy for getting through that bottleneck. Since the gits are cowards and runts, deference to female caprice is their only hope of winning reproduction.

Note that you and I --we-- are trying to reinstate the bear or lion form of culling. While the gits in charge of this modern upside world are trying to more fully cement in their bird strategy for culling "us" bears/lions out of the way... as we all spiral towards the egg through the bottle neck.

"Either male vs male direct aggression is the culling force [eg bears or lion etc] or female choice is the culling force [eg flying birds, insects, some fish etc]."

Either way, females are "more valuable".

This is a great irony of dimorphic sexuality since dim sex originates(for proto vertebrates) as an emasculation attack by the mature hermaphrodite (male) directed at a younger hermaphrodite (female). The irony is the victors through their victory (ie creating females) actually made things tougher on themselves since males do have tougher lives (whether in male combat species [bears/lions] or female-as-chooser species [birds, insects]).

But yes, the females are still emasculated stunted males by nature*. That's what you want to hear. You are looking for an empowerment argument from nature; same as liberals. Liberals just have to pound square pegs into round holes and then censor the challenges to the illogic. (*female as stunted creature by nature is massively suppressed fact of our evolution _by all sides._)

Liberals hype up the fem sex value aspect of dim sex; And also the specifically female choice dynamics [eg birds, insects etc] and extrapolate to all nature and use as an "argument ad naturalism" to vindicate the modern western female-as-chooser bird-like dynamic [which gits need --it's their only possible chance]; Meanwhile conservatives try to hype up the male vigor aspects of the male as warrior dynamics (bears, lions). Conservatives are hamstrung in their empowerment attempt by their allies in the anti nature creationist and fuddy duddy "moralist"(effete) community. (Moralist fuddy duddies are the bird-like gits that vectored us into this female-as-chooser dynamic in the first place.)

==============

A good example of the absurdity that comes from spinning biology into "nature as female empowerment display" is "females come before males".

Nonsense. A-sexual organisms come first; then hermaphrodites; then dim sex. One can not have "females" or "males" without the other--absurd. (Dim Sex formed a couple separate times through parallelism.)

They concoct the 'fems come first' absurdity from the fact that A-sexual organisms have parts that later become female parts.

"Female lions pick mates." They observed females go to new brunette stuffed males more than new blond/red males. Fine. But how blinded by political "relativism" does one need to be to not see male lions KILLING EACH OTHER IN WARS complete with coalition flanking and diversionary maneuvering!!? (Panzer Battalion strikes again! [It's actually Pz Abteilung.])

Same with the elephant "matriarchy". Nonsense. Male elephants fight to the death and the winner male fucks his choice at his leisure. It is like claiming that a harem parlor --filled with lounging dames-- is a matriarchy cause sometimes Sultan isn't in there. _How blinded with bigotry does one have to be to not see a giant --no, a JUMBO-- male elephant in must?_

(That is a main reason I ignore this "matriarchy/ patriarchy" blabber. It is all ill defined just so tales.)

A specifically human example of the absurdity that comes from trying to spin everything bio science into pro female display is "female open callosum" brain is better than male human single hemisphere brain". ...Pigs, deers, horses, crocodiles etc all have open callosum brains. The male human has the single hemi focused brain and only the male human has left Erda. Coincidence?

Not to mention liberals are shameless hypocrites: One minute it is "we are all the same and biology isn't real"; the next it is "biology is real and females are better --even if we gotta pound square pegs into round holes and shamelessly censor --and excommunicate those 'in league with the devil'-- to make it so".

There are tons of socio anthro babble [not really biology per se] matriarchy /patriarchy fem empowerment absurdities. (List some yourselves.)

We are definitely in a dark age when it comes to bio science -- and especially gender bio science. You conservatives--most especially Americans-- played your part in building that by being stubborn gits who couldn't(and still can't) get certain stuff. Liberals exploited accordingly until their citadel like control was complete. Now we are in a dark age.

-----------------------
FYI, Erda is an old Norse goddess; it is our modern word Earth.

I meant men have built all this crap, including stuff _that leaves Earth_ --even though "handicapped" by only having half a brain. (poor dears) :roll: Meanwhile the mighty wimmins/mouse/crocodile open brain has... um has... Now give me a second and I'll come up with something.

Ah got it: gossiped about ass.

=========

Dame wrote: "I thought China and Asian cultures in general have always favored boys, culturally speaking."

That is a complexity issue that people always point to as another example of how non natural humans are --how above reality itself we are.

While I don't have it figured out entirely it is something like this...

The fathers (and his top sons) are achieving and holding rank so that they can be as reproductively valuable as the females. (Note females do nothing but just show up and be healthy to be as valuable.) The way _those_ fathers hold rank is by having lots of mules that work and fight on behalf of him (and his number one son(s)) and the land needed to sustain that continuum. Those main 'top dog' genes are the main things making it through the bottle neck of fem sex value; the extra sons are a type of husk around the kernels.

This question and concern of your's is more valid than a dame's last one about "self awareness"/ Why creatures are motivated to do what they do. (I explained that one. She was simply wrong there because wimmins are "too close" in their thinking; they lack big picture objectivity.) This 'I want sons' thing is a more important thing you have brought up.

There are other similar examples like that too. Wife immolation(healthy fem killed and buried with high rank man); dowry paid to boys family.

Like I said I don't have this all figured out yet. But the dim sex premise I explained earlier is still valid and accurate. This "I am compelled to want sons" [compulsions are created by chemical modules] is simply a "god of the gaps" issue. ("God of the gaps" = a profundity that hasn't been figured out which doubters use to throw a monkey wrench into the premise.) It is a complexity issue that doesn't negate the premise; it just muddies it.

Also the whole thing might be spandrels. A trait that is just going along for the ride --like ornaments on a cathedral.

(More later if I think of a better, smoother way of explaining this. Good shot dopey girl!)

(Just FYI note "culture" is some kind of expression of underlying natural reality.)

===============

Self awareness and compulsions...

Males aspire because they have compulsions to achieve. (A compulsion is created by chemical chain reactions.) These specific compulsions have been selected more often than other compulsions, from the litter of extended siblings, given the energy conservation principle[finite food] and specifically female sexual value(bottle neck growing from the sperm to egg ratio).

Female humans aspire because they have compulsions to make it harder for males to just get "some" easily; "shit test". These compulsions have been selected once again by energy conversion/conservation BUT specifically... creating chaos and boundaries around reproductions is making her children (ie her compulsions /chemical conversion trends) more effective in some way. (Simply, it is inducing competition and then having that chaos separate the men from the boys.)

(Chemical chain reactions vary. Only some will be selected as efficient at converting more finite food into more of that chain reaction assembly line. The deemed-efficient is selected by an unwitting varying environment.)

To put it even more simply. A male aspires to rock stardom so he can get a chick to become a weak kneed dick sucker. A female aspires to rock stardom so her knees won't just become weak when a male rock star points at his package.

But to say people join up for "honor" or "protection" reasons...

...A red mud tribe(ocher in hair) was asked why they were at war with the blue mud tribe(wode in hair) [they both descend from the white lime in hair culture earlier --blue tribe finding itself by a part of a river bank where wode was exposed, and red tribe finding itself by some other bank of the river where ocher was exposed]. A rud mudder says "Well duh, just look at them... They have blue mud in their hair".

Deeper analysis is not something a joiner has a compulsion towards.

I put that little bit above about the tribes not really knowing what they were fighting for other than their collective feeling that the other tribe sucked ass so as to try to grapple with something. It was meant to be poetic.

Once there was a whale watching boat. College girls on it and a man. (Lets call that man Sean.)

So the whales jump out of the water and smash back down on to the water. Sean says, "do you know why they do that? Only boy whales do it."

...Confused silence.

Sean continues, "it is reproductive display scaring other males away using the conductivity of water to convey size and strength."

The girls, basically in unison, go "Nuh uh. It probably just feels good." [And the 'nays' have it. ...Gotta love democracy.]

Well of course it feels good. But good feelings are compulsions created by bio chemical modules. Out of all the bio chemical modules that formed (rolling around on the ocean floor, pissing in your own face, standing upside down in a volcano plume) --all of which feel good to the doer-- that "jumping out of the water makes me feel good" module did best; ie was 'selected' by the complex unwitting environment more often.

I --er uh Sean-- stated why that module got selected ("scared other males away") but Sean didn't say the whale knew this about his motivation. It simply felt good to him. Sean didn't think that he had to break it down to CAVEMAN BRAIN level for the um "feminine mind" of the world to get it.

Male Lions' midnight belly-grunt festival is the same as the whale jump: an impulse that feels good to the doer but it got unwittingly selected for "intimidation display" reasons (it scared younger smaller male(s) away).

To understand how unwitting selection of modules works, think leopard spots (a cutaneous system bio chemical module). Out of all the other kitten variations, the module that coincidentally unwittingly [since it is just some protein polymers in a goop] created a pattern that mimic'd dappled sunlight did best for reasons unknown to the victorious over-the-other-kittens leopard him/her self.

We then as humans from an outside looking in perspective figure out why that particular cutaneous module did best. We say: stalk pounce ambush predator [as opposed to run the prey down predator] benefits from having camouflage; the camo could mimic some environment feature (or be pattern diffusion/confusion like Zebras or WWI battleships). Eg dappled sunlight coming thru trees.

Same with orgasm module. Same with any other module that has benefited the host it makes up. The modules don't --and the host itself doesn't-- need to know it is the most efficient energy converting trait in an amoral energy based universe for it to "win". It simply "wins" for reasons that go over its "head".

Now back to pussy (the be all end all of our little corner of the universe here)...

Avril Lavign (or who ever) aspires because it feels good. But by doing so she limits (even further) the amount of boys who are eligible breeding stock. Shit test. Avril Lavign doesn't need to know this about the module that compels "aspiring".

GI Joe aspires because it feels good to him. Ie he has modules which compel 'this a way' and not 'that a way'. The particular modules which make him feel happy when he stomps face have gotten selected because they limit the amount of males in his area. GI JOE doesn't know this about himself or his modules; He simply, "knows" (is compelled to feel) that those other dudes `suck ass.

Now given the species we come from so far --not what we are becoming now-- the female human's desire to stomp face of other is not there so as to limit the amount of males in her vicinity. It is there to make it harder for the surviving males (on her side) of the face stomping hoedown to get twat. Shit test.

If Mankind continues to become a male-less hive (and it will --even after this little fall a comin') then the females will diversify --specialize--into different roles. Like the female-only caste of a hive. Then yes that hive's female-warrior-specialist-compulsion (to stomp face and see others as "suck asses") can be said to be something other than shit test impulse.

Do you understand CAVE WOMAN?

=====================

I don't quote others; others quote me. (And you can quote me.)

Some solutions and observations

2010-03-27T06:00:00.008-04:00

Luxuriating in the afterglow...

-----------

I believe Western culture needs to eliminate the bad blood/breeds that created the problems (we are suffering under). This probably entails civil war.

Killing cockroaches is not sociopathy. ...Unless one is a cockroach.

I believe in owning the female.

I believe in disciplining the female.

I believe she is not equal intellectually or physically or morally (with anyone but the cockroaches).

None of the above is "sociopathy".

But conforming to feminist edicts and calling break-away from them 'sociopathy' is typical conservative conformist cowardice. This is exactly what liberalism time immemorial relies on to impose its snowballing revolution, generation after generation through all history.

Also your contention that [evil doers] will be put on a big bad "List" by the scary government is silly.

Big deal: I'm on a list now.

I like helicopters. The last ones were delicious.

You change a system by putting stress on it.

That takes courage.

Cowardice is for slaves.

-----------------

Laws are arbitrary ever changing constructs.

Eg this notion that young girls are off limits is a new law --created by men's enemies (the real sociopaths).

It needs to be changed.

Saying that is not sociopathy. But conforming to some law is cowardice. The very cowardice that is the root of feminism in the first place.

-----------------

The 'good pastor' is trying to stop feminism by attempting to evidence how it is bad for females.

"Equality is bad for females --they might pull a muscle!"

Good! I hope they do; their babymakers too. Yep.

I ain't give no fuck if female 'empowahment hurts females.

Even if paternalism/fem protectionism worked at stopping this phase of feminism, the situation created would be the perfect condition for feminism to start up again anew even more virulently.

===============

The problem is getting back there [an acceptable to 'me' cultural dynamic] and staying there forever. Note that we came from such a dynamic but snowballed out of it to this disaster.

The reason we snowballed out of that to the breed we've become now is the "alpha beta gamma" --coup d ta-- cycle of human (and proto human) history and pre history.

To thwart the coup d ta that destroys that cultural dynamic, all dudes need to be the same. Either through strict culling or bio tech making them the same.

=================
Why didn't telling the state to "go stuff it" work back when men were still in charge of the family and quasi self sufficient hunters and such?

Feminism happened because of cosmic determinism. Snowballs.

Understanding that allows us to --possibly-- make the current/snowball go where we want it to. And that would be determinism too.

---------
The state is not an enemy. This state is. This state came into being because men embraced the bizarre mentally ill fantasy that a world with out a state was/is possible.

+++++++++++++++++
=================

If there was any evidence that an actual company paid a wimmins less, Gloria Allred types would be all over it along with the media, and the Equal.O.C-type unconstitutional wimmins' government bureaus.

The 77 cents on the dollar means all men at large have generated more than all wimmins at large. But it is presented as though some chick at an interview was paid less than a man.

Not to mention the stat itself was debunked as a fem stat coming from some college dept that couldn't vindicate the stat itself. Just like with the DV and rape stats. Once challenged, there is no source for the stat but it grows legs and that becomes the stat. Note the 77 cents changes every year and depending on speech it could be as low as 75 to 70 cents; hell sometimes they'll be a decimal tail on it LOL.

When one actually studies the given thing that feminism complains about, he'll find that the females are actually advantaged in the given situation that the trumped up femstat complained about. Eg the military: only 25 % fem officers. Horrible! Until one considers that only 14% of military is female. Same with hospitals: more wimmins die in them you see ...cause men don't go there at all; and fewer wimmins used as _guinea pigs_ by new pharmaceuticals --the outrage!. Well it's the same with this money thing: the females are actually over advantaged by corporations and Human Resources than the men for less real work generated.

And none of that even begins to address the more important underlying and surrounding issue which is "fem sex value" and male competition over it. The only reason people work and have "positions" in the first place.

Finale, Solutions

2009-10-23T14:29:00.068-04:00

Finale, Solutions
(Just a sketch)

Stopping fem is two fold.

How to stop the system we have now and what system to create that prevents these problems in the future. By solving the 2nd problem first, it gives us the rally cry means to solve the first one, since the masses don't jump out of the frying pan until they know there is something other than fire beyond.

2) How to prevent fem forever. Preventing fem forever entails understanding how fem happened...

We keep alive too many weak males for the last few centuries/millenia. Feminism is a trick the runt males use to box out the better males. This emboldens females.

-----
I advocate and recommend stopping pro fem breed and belief --in all of its manifestations and prerequisite-antecedents-- for all times and always-- through _any_means_ necessary.

Note that there is no such thing as equal: Equal is rally cry (and solution attempt) of battles passed; it is long since exposed as balder dash.

BS --like “hope” and the rest of the altruism largess apparatus-- is ultimately simply tactical on the part of the speaker since the utopia espoused can't happen but replacing others with _your_ greed & need can.

I understand freedom is a bloody word. Most people don't have the stomach for it. At _best_ they can fight every once and a while to try to free themselves from some acute enslavement. But they don't have the courage or brains/foresight to see the larger causes that lead to each liberation revolution always falling short. Therefore they don't have the whatever to nip the problems in the bud. Non the less long term solution are needed --a big picture rassion d tre.

All the talk about protecting inferiors and all. That's what unraveled the west originally.

================

Solving The Human Condition Woes:

.Testing and sterilization of the stupid and cruel (start by testing before voting);

.Make everyone the same in childhood (but 'up' rather than 'down' sameness) --since most politics is unwitting reactionarism /venting from kidhood;

._Control of female hypergamy instinct_ through any means. (Men shouldn't be squeamish here; men "anthropomorphize" females more than they deserve.)

=======================

The anglo colonial idea (america et al) of running away to the hinterland as a way of getting away from the hive and its blabbering hypocrisy is a dead end. That hinterland solution has been said all along before; It is the exploration age and colonial ethos. It didn’t work the first time.

...Gamble that civi self destructs through all the worker bees it forces into John Galt status.

How many more generations, runaway, can last un ‘absorbed’ in the outback? _Especially relevant question, since all --pertinently the females-- know how to use a phone now._

I think the fight is in the cities etc. Control of media and military [catch 22 there].

Convince soldiers, mano e mano, that they fight for the wrong side --ie their enemies-- as duped Useful Idiots; seize media; convince the rest. Note, soldiers are very thick though; La Machine likes it that way (Natural Selection doing its thing, selecting for conformist simple minded warrior drones).

Then once victory achieved, a strong _government_ created so as to prevent the problems of liberalism from ever rearing up again. (Ie get that whole “government is a bad word” thing out of your skulls; and you don’t need a “tax break” either, you dupes.)

If man makes it to an ‘undiscovered continent’ (eg space platforms), then varying social models will spring again, including MicroCommunities.

Once there, I’d recommend for the MicroCommunities A) being very isolated; and B) grappling with, so far un analyzed, gender (ie the females), child rearing and rank and caste issues among the male monkeys. Be aware that controlling gender and status issues --ie creating contentment-- will stifle “growth"/change. ...Thus allowing the more vibrant and hungry effete hives to find and absorb the MicroComms --unless MicroC are well out of reach. Natural Selection will do its thing.

=======================

The only long term solution to stopping the endless cycle of coup d eta which unraveled mankind is one-male-per-territory land owners; every male gets a plot and owned female(s). Think contented gorillas as opposed to revolutionary chimps. Use techno (genetic etc) to make everyone the same (and females compliant).

Space travel gives us raisson d tre rally point (something to do, rather than ‘invading slavia’ again or etc). And it creates room and another go/turn to try the scheme.

But first "Protectionism".

Abolish capitalism as a way of opposing liberalism, since they are more symbiotic than kidney failure and dialysis. Capitalism and democracy = doom, just like the jesus thing wound up equaling.

Once power is garnered (through protectionist BigTent triangulations), replace military, media, lawyers and academics too.

Then policy... Policies of eugenics and antifeminism; and space colonization. (Eugenics and anti fem achieved through soapbox economic protectionism.)

Long term...

Control breeding and rearing:

Male only land owners; one son only, who then passes baton to his one son on his own part of the large land plot, cyclically (two corners of a plot, back and forth over the generations). (Immortality techno might obsolete that.) Trespass is mortal crime; zero sexual mobility for females (ankle monitoring, etc possibly). Use Interwebs to link all male landowners who can remain individuals yet be plugged into, as neurons, a giant brain collective. Ie. Civilization yet still rural --'Ideal Mankind' [Himmler, Jefferson... and Mendelssohn too]. Teach the generations over same network.

Spread to orbit then beyond.

Out of the trees and off our knees.

Out of the larval cocoon.

(...But you are naughty children who will do it your own way. Enter our history as femdom Borg... who bring us to the same celestial destiny anyway.)

=================

1)How to stop it acutely/how to topple this regime? (People will say "hey that's a terrorist threat". No, it is a terrorist promise...)

Some media control then military coup then instantaneous media/law and elite putsches. More consciousness-raising first; Need better challenges to fem boiler plate [DV and stuff].

The fact females are ineffective in combat is a plus not a minus. We want america-- and the rest of the anglo-jew controlled west-- to start losing its wars.

....
Let's end lying to, emotionally abusing* and manipulating men. (*including but not limited to secret telling and gossip)

Let's end mothers abusing their children. (And I ain't talking about abortion.)

Let's end lesbian partner violence.
....

====================
>
“What do you propose for a solution [to single fem parent]? Forced marriage / re-marriage of single parents?”
>

Um...

1 Preventing them [wimmins] from breeding (through reversible sterilization) until claimed by passable adult male [see below 3b] then preventing them from divorcing?

2 Take away lone female social and economic "rights". ('Rights' is a made up term by con artists; those such as yourself. I don't actually acknowledge the term.)

3 Testing and sterilization before hand.

3b Elimination of under males/ replacing them with work machines (or 3c getting rid of 'low' males and then letting civilization die in favor of... "the matriarchy of the tribal past" LOL). [FYI, We do not come from matriarchies; indeed the whole concept of patriarchy and matriarchy is ever shift-able just so tale.]

4 Replacing of females with artificial womb technology (including conscripting other mammals [headless] (though I personally like animals too much), until full artificial wombs can be fabricated). [We could conscript altered human females so, actually.]

4b "Medicating or treating"(surgically) female humans to be more compliant "citizens".

Just a few solutions off the top of my head. Shall I go on?...

Oh BTW, jesus saves and when do I get my tax break?

I mean that's what it's all about right? Your type says whatever kind of protectionist utopian BS you want --literally ignoring your betters who have thought "utopia" all through already-- and then the the half brained, dog on leash Useful-Idiot 'conservatives' respond "tax break" or "but what about the lord?" Then every once and while your class lets them off the leash to go bite your enemies.

=============

If you’re concerned about race issues, form up with the Russians. It should’ve gone down like that in the mid 20th cent --instead of that disaster. Note the Slavs are a little meaner/more masculine than the Brits, though.

=============

As for race and feminism...

females need to be massively disenfranchised. Permanently.

Then internal human reproduction needs to be replaced with ‘external womb incubators’. (Not simply to allow abortion to be more easily outlawed (death to jebus cult).) External wombs will allow _consistently controlled_, _always pre-planned human procreation_ to occur. Also cloning techno and genetic health and disease techno needs to be mastered.

Either liberalism --which is a female trend-- will be nullified and therefore race replacement will stop. OR “race replacement” will occur and then the Euro-sphere females will get what they have coming.

...A new chimera breed will form from the enslaved loins of the remaining Euro females.

Either way the human female will be segregated from political life.

A grand cosmic irony befitting the make-believe Great Savant in the Sky.

As the wind laughs…

====================================
Eugenics

Smart people self sterilize all the time. It’s called thinking it through. The dumb can’t think it through so they should be forced to make the right decision (the decision to breed slowly and carefully).

Pain and suffering will be the norm in a race of idiots. Even if it is not ‘thought’ about.

Remember, either way “genics” happens. It is just a question of which strains will thrive --and whether these strains will be called “Eu-” or "Dys-”. (Note 'eu' or 'dys' are relative constructs.)

It gets even more complicated than that unfortunately; eg “heredity” etc. But the premise is super sound.

Meaning... er um... dog breeds [b]do[/b] form through selecting of characters from the litter BUT it isn't always a `straight line, given the 'profundities' of 'he's got grandma's nose and great grandpa's ears'.

(Few of those 'profundities' --from the 19th and 20th century explosion of epiphanies-- have trickled down and been imbibed properly because of the [i]political problems[/i]--problems in part created by the propaganda crusade to rally dopey johnny and his holy babble].)

But the premise of selective breeding always happening _whether we "take the bull by the horns" or not_ is super sound. [`T'is.]

And this 'taking the bull by the horns' is not synonymous with 'invading Slavia and engaging in "Draconian anti saboteur policy" [as retreating in dire straights occurs]; nor is it synonymous with inviting sanctimonious, hypocritical carpet bombing.

Most don't characterize eugenics any where near correct. ...Strawmen wherein the word 'eugenics' means German late war (WWII) slaughter --allied induced or scorched earth Goeterdaammerung.

If the dumb whites ascending in recent centuries are not sterilized, the “race” will die through the weight of their ill thinking majority muscle anyway.

This isn’t that complicated either.

============

Anti eugenicists would do better to say "techno can make everybody fit into a 'good stock' template without the sterilizing of 'undesirables' [since the [gene/medical] tech will eliminate the undesirables `at the gate through its advances]."

Yeah well so long as the stupid and the frontmen profiteer shysters (which the polite call lawmakers etc and capitalists etc) are in charge (not to mention the jew/media) chances of the gene/medical techno snowball being used for "good" are slim.

Like most things that have gripped white maledom, it's a catch 22... If we could only get rid of the giant peter-principle [mediocres failing upwards] structure of Lilliput, we'd be in a perfect position to... get rid of the giant peter-principle structure of Lilliput.

Also, allowing other types --_who have grievances with the intelligent, healthy white male host_-- to be "upgraded" to "our" aptitude is potentially shortsightedly dangerous.

Nurture is very real. And it's still all biodeterminism, since it's all bio chemistry. A petry dish doesn't recognize nature nurture sophistry.

To understand nature nurture, look at allergies. Two [b]different[/b] types walk through a hay field; one gets the sniffles and the other doesn't. It is genetics. Now take that one that does get the sniffles... If he never comes across hay, he will never get the sniffles. It is nurture/environment. (Hay is just an analog here--it can apply to lotsa scenarios.)

Also "lead in the water" changes someone's nervous system and therefore creates different end results. "Lead" is just one example of how monogenerational contingency effects bio-chemistry of individual.

Liberals take these facts and use them unscrupulously and hypocritically (just like the fact of right /wrong, and good /bad being relative constructs). Often jews, yes.

(By the way, regarding testing and eugenics, females are the 'carriers' of most social disease; the sons who are patho/ violent, bums, the weird etc are the expression of that disease. 'Female sexual value' --or more properly the instinct it has unwittingly bred for in ever competing males-- causes many/most to not see that.)

There is no ‘gene’ for things per se. “Gene” is a glib way of stating a premise.

There ARE differences in the tissues and etc bio chemistry between individuals; there are differences in perception, problem solving and prediction ability between individuals; the biochemistries are the roots of the different perception, problem solving and prediction abilities.

Genes turn food("energy") into those tissues and biochemistries. Genes express differently depending on which genes they have wound up near on the genome.

Environmental effects --acting like sideswipes / blind-sidings" on the food converting processes-- just further complexify the premise.

_________________________________________
====================================
Free Range pussy and 'Pick Up Artist' "Game" Culture

Females should be regulated. Free range pussy is as ridiculous as cattle randomly walking down the street.

Once men figured out how to domesticate food (a'la Steve Martin's caveman bit on SNL), the whole world radically changed.

We need such a revolution when it comes to these ill mannered, self centered discriminatory children (er um "females" I believe is the polite term) that the neo cortex must use for reproduction.

Down with 'free range pussy' setting terms for everyone. Regulate the female.

_"Down with Free Range pussy."_

Until then...

'Game' simply means, girls (like all people) are automatonic: when a stick is thrown they WILL CHASE IT.

The Christians and the liberals hate this, for it exposes their polite fictions which hold together this caste structure of runts as absurdity. Game pisses off all the right people and that's good.

It is very similar to the girl culture of gossip and legion 'wimmins magazines', where in females share tips about how to exploit men's most vulnerable needs for fun and profit.

That is why female et al outrage over 'game' is so... typical (hypocrisy). It is similar to the hypocritical outrage over "rock star and groupie culture": ...An arrogant-peacock man having rockstar leverage over people who are gaga needy and using them for fun is heinous, heinous, heinous and not very nice... unless you're an average or better (and talentless) teenage
girl doing it to her suitors and then it is a solemn right...

'Game' is "science"/Darwinism/anthropology/sociology/"socio-biology/evolutionary psychology/"HBD"** put into living practice --ignoring, _conspicuously,_ the sophistry based debates(looped in circles) that demand those subjects remain relegated to just theoretica.

You my dear are the object.

Fetch.

(_"science"/Darwinism/anthropology/sociology/"socio-biology/evolutionary psychology/"HBD"**_ **The reason the subject keeps changing its title is because the 'human sciences' are scary and controversial. The demagogues who ostensibly represent/parasite off of the scared masses come in with swords drawn to make the facts go away (and control the 'ceiling painting' implications of them). Ultimately the badly outnumbered intellects "abandon the field" to the sophists and protectionist demagogues. These intellects then set up shop somewhere else under a different name... until the "liberals" catch on and deploy their attack again...)

=============

For now porno is necessary to free males from the male and female created female sex-cartel.

But in the long run the boys are being exploited by pimps of various types (females or otherwise). That is the reason that AFTER the "revolution" porno will be controlled. _But NOT in the name of protecting females._

If and when the boys and men have access to sex when they want, porno won't be desired anymore for that reason.

==========

Others are right when they say "80% of dames doing 20% of dudes". This is the key thing. And yes it is the core of all 'inequality', discrimination, competition, health, caste and oppression. It is Not easy to solve though --especially when our society is born and bred full of dunces who can't begin to contemplate on that philosophical plane for genetic reasons. (That's why I say death to democracy.)

______________________________________________________________
=======================================================

Little Bo Pee Pee...

As the male human becomes more and more infantile (which is the side effect of men's coup d eta snowball of pulling down the dominant males and the primitive /robust way of life in general [which is the cause of "feminism"]), he is going to have to find a way to either stunt the females under his level of infantilism/sappiness or simply get rid of/purge the highest /most masculine/ most "self aware" females (who use to be kept in line by the long ousted dominant males).

If he doesn't, the praying mantis/black widow male-redundancy principle will trigger. Note that ubiquitous though conspicuously ignored "femdom" is that snowball getting rolling.

He can achieve this stunting of the females through... Promethean bio tech solutions or complicated biology shapings /personality shapings that come from complicated not understood socialization phenom (simply "nurture syndromes").

People don't get this stuff because the ascendant males of the runt-ocracy western man breeds for simply lack something important.

I challenge this notion that seeing a dick squirt a few years early "damages" a female. She is a _female_ for christ sake! --she's supposed to be "damaged" in that way. (If males can't accept that then 1 they can cut their dicks off (basically the modern agenda) and 2 not make any female children.)

Boys raised in single fem households --even if their is no sex involved-- are way, way more dysfunctional –unable to grow and “fledge” [like birds from a nest] “throw down” etc (self discipline, ambition/indolence etc)-- than a female who did 'it' with uncle.

Boinking/marrying a niece (and disciplining her too!) use to be totally normal for most until a few generations ago (it still is for much of the species). Stunting them – or the more popular way of saying it now "abusing their forming libidos" and “DV”-- is what makes a female stay female bio deterministically: if she keeps growing shes hits a type of maleness (or at least leverage).

Males don't want other males having easy access to sex so they look for any excuse to hamstring other males; they also display protector /mule abilities to females.

...Men discover a female who has been boinked young and then tell her she is "harmed" in some way as they get the blanky out and hot cocoa for her and tuck her feeties in (making a victim in the process) –calling out loudly a drag-net for the “offender” with finger in air and hand to their breast. And other older females will tell her she is damaged too, motivated by their understanding that she probably “lost” the “whose in charge” “eye contact” part of the encounter and motivated by their desire to use any trick/propaganda to get more deference from men (especially if they are wall flowers with axes to grind).

Note females specialize in “stare down” as toddlers, along with lifting their skirts when introduced to new older males and later walking on tip toes and sleeping with butts in the air. I don't know what that's supposed to mean... I'm just saying.

The boinked females “lost the [pyscho-babble] part of the encounter”. But that's just it-- we want them to “lose” this encounter. That's what undermines their sex cartel. Duh.

--------
On a related note, society invents elaborate canards that strippers and sex workers in general (eg porno) have so called “low body image” --said to be the side effect of uncle-etc boinking. LO freaking L: ...girls show their clams for a living with smirks on their faces to sailors for 2000 dollars a week because they are ashamed of their bodies [sarc]. Yeah, makes total sense. Egads!

I'll explain Sex workers (not junky street walker variety who are legally retarded)... They matured early (in modern america that is a synonym for Italian or other ethnic) and had the “pretty ones”[genitals] at the 11 year old all girl sleep-over pool-party (where girls explore same sex finger banging and the like). Ie they are the girls with _higher_ body image. Duh.
Then our simpering infantile society (jebus cult mixed with liberalism) --thru that simperingness _which emboldens_-- creates avenues for them with the lure of easy money and bad-ass status allure. (Probably false easy money lure: the market is swamped.)

------

Speaking of young gulls and the modern world...

Do 12 year old girls now shave their twats to look more grown up?...

================

How does having sex with the young female harm her?

All the females under 18 or 15 or even 13 who were married off in history were "harmed"?

Whatever harm you believe she incurs, others incur even worse harm in other categories without any sex involved yet society considers those other things "moral"/ not-harmful.

You don't think things through. You only see two domino effects of a 10 domino chain.

It's like Domestic Violence. If society doesn't allow the cheating wife to be "harmed", someone else will be by her untethered folly.

How does letting her escape the "harm" of feminine stunting not harm other people?

You're just making it up. Again, you don't think things through. You only see two domino effects of a 10 domino chain.

BTW, regarding Mylie Cyrus: Desire for Mylie Cyrus is not "pedo", being as she's a teen star. (She is a later blooming sappier redneck-type though. But thats good: we want to keep them there. Duh)

NOTE –and I never do this caps thing-- CONSERVATIVES –LIKE THE MASSES IN GENERAL--ARE DUNCES AND MINDLESSLY CONFORMIST AUTOMATONS AND GULLIBLE MULES WHO COULDN'T GET THEIR WAY OUT OF A WET PAPER BAG.

Tough guy white knights[tm] demonstrate that they believe in violence to make people obey.

So then it is just a question of WHAT people should obey.

For now the simpleminded types have embraced a total lie that the female humans are benign and good, when in truth she is the key to everyone's woe everywhere in all times.

Controlling her is key to all permanent solutions.

I wouldn’t come to the aid of any big mouth female ever.

That is one way to stop them.

So long as dunces –er uh I mean conservative men– continue to _mindlessly_, _instinctively_ defend females, the females will continue to snowball society down the path of more and more liberalism. Ie continue to damage people and society through tantrum.

The females are not sentient enough to understand or care that they are doing that. Like animals they –like most– only understand consequence in real time not potential. Ergo… let them go.

Another type of male is "Princess Spoilers"; they too are a core reason why we have feminism. ...Give the pathological squeaky wheel more and more oil ('or garsh, she'll scree'), while those with fewer mattress between themselves and the pea are told to "suck it up".

If you build bias into the system a minority of the malicious will use it unscrupulously.

=====================

Rape is a made up word. Especially in the Islam or Mormon instance of young female marriage.

This so called Islamic/Mormon “rape” really means not allowing females to charge a price; not allowing them to form a sex cartel; not allowing them to manipulate "Useful Idiot" infantile males into enslaving themselves.

The Mainstream West brainwashes it children to conform to its mores the same as those people "brainwash" theirs.

The Mainstream West has simply conformed to mores --often created by jews-- that trick it into thinking females are "equal" and should be "liberated".

You all --mainstream westerners-- then brainwash your children to those mores: you set up your male children to be "raped" by a system that not only doesn't have their best interests at heart but often outwardly despises them.

================

>
someone said, negatively: “sexual availability at puberty”
>>

Why shouldn’t wimmin be made to remain sexually available?

Men putting endless barriers around females (as their male reproductive strategy for marginalizing other males) is why we have the ambition, greed, political problems (triangulation: immigration, feminism etc) and the psychological /pathology problems, the chaotic economic/ ‘growth’ and environmental problems that we do in western culture.

Islamics and Polynesians and etc indolent cultures are non growth based --ie non environmentally destructive and non chaotic/ non pathologic-- specifically because the males are content…

…given the “sexual availability” of their females.

It is ironic that the west’s sexual revolution and “free love” led to the price of sex going through the roof (thereby exacerbating male competition to generate more for themselves --at others' expense-- so they can buy some acceptance and fidelity from a creature so en-pedestaled that she isn't use to offering any.

I find it fascinating that liberals have no problem advocating “redistribution of wealth” but are blind to the real wealth that biologically underpins and motivates all the other kinds of competition/ wealth acquiring.

Redistribute the real wealth!…

_Control the females_.

Liberals have always been bad at finding the point and that’s why they do so badly at the color in the circle with the number two pencil tests (hence they attack those tests as “arbitrary constructs” of some dark force called patriarchy).

People in western culture are like children that don’t understand what they really advocate. It’s just tantrum and endless political triangulations/ realignments venting failure issues from childhood.

=======================

Females are not equal.

Females need to be mute and stunted; or replaced.

Testing before voting.

Sterilize the dumb.

Abort the dopey (bio chemically diagnosed as such by future tech).

Christianity and democracy must be stopped.

Then Eugenics --ie testing in childhood and sterilization-- must be imposed. (Test(s) should look for intellect, health and sanity. Medical technology can be used to make one better prepared to 'pass' the test(s).)

If not the neo-cortex becomes extinct.

Simple.

===========

Never run.. It makes you look weak, thus leading to more, next time. Fighting back --and even losing-- is better. ...And then a nice speech/statement back at the mic, carpe diem style "[see what we mean? The 'injustice', etc.]".

============

I'm against sperm banks and adoption for anyone no less single fem parents. Children need to be raised by creatures that sense their aptitudes and characters.

.....................................................

Bombe, bombe, bombe per svegliare questi dormiglioni

“Bombs, bombs, bombs to wake up these sluggards"

+++++++++++++

Liberalism is not bad per se (all that vegetarianism and sappy this and sappy that). It is simply wrong: it makes bad decisions rooted in bad beliefs (most of that the fault of congenital shortcomings and complex snowballing implications of that). (Note I personally still pine for the northern “heroic” past (true conservationism), ‘cause I’m a child ‘alpha male’--the past is where I thrived --but it doesn’t ‘work’ or it would have already.)

+++++++++++++
===============
Males need to solve the man vs man problem --that starts in childhood-- that has plagued us time immemorial. Doing that will solve every other issue.

Competitivness _and_ genetic based difference (environmental difference just adds to that problem).

But more to the point "loss".

All politics is the side effect of reactionaryism from childhood.

The plug itself needs to be pulled that leads to the complexities that led to 'feminism'. Ie that led to civilization/jebus gobbly gook(wishful thinking)/democracy/feminism (and anti male marxism [which is jew motivated trick to marginalize host culture males]).

The alpha beta gamma coup d eta cycle has to be stopped itself.

We have the technologies and philosophical understandings now to begin to grapple with this.

One male per territory land owners; owned females --no leaving of land; one son only.

It is either the above or snowballing to femdom borg hive.

Think gorilla-ocray [one adult male per group] replacing chimp ocracy [many males in hierarchy with constant coup d eta].

(Snowballing collateral damage of gorilla-ocracy is trend towards dopey-laziness. Snowballing collaterol damage of chimp trend is democracy/feminism.)

Your choice...

-----------

The long term preventative solution is everybody needs to be made the same (through bio tech or severe heavy duty nurture controls) or we need thick culls each generation in childhood (so as to protect the good seed /children from the coalitions of envious vengeful idiots and weaklings).

How to get to that solution there is more difficult.

---------
I say --paraphrasing the Steve Martin caveman bit from old SNL --'down with free range pussy'.

If that winds up creating dysgenics where too many fool males breed, then we need eugenics to redress that.

We shouldn't just hope that after female liberation and dispersal that the 'best males' will by picked at the 'thumpa thumpa' club.

Alpha Beta Gamma (Omega) Dynamic

2009-10-12T07:20:00.008-04:00

The "Alpha Beta Gamma Dynamic" (sometimes called "alpha beta omega" by plagiarizers; but that's okay so long as it spreads):

Underling males --kept alive by human success-- ousted overling males to get some sex. This started a social pattern. Human intelligence was able to see a tactic and repeat it.

This is called the "alpha beta gamma dynamic". Beta males rouse up gamma rabble (getting ever larger because of human success at food and environment control) and use them to oust the alpha (strutting presumptuous peacocks). _Then the beta become the alpha and are in turn ousted by the same tactic snowballing over the generations._

It is that that made white humans as smart as they are. One doesn't need to be [i]this[/i] smart to simply be an apex predator in temperate and cold clim.

Well that political dynamic /sexual tactic kept snowballing until we lost control-over/respect-from the females.

http://seanmaccloud.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-and-why-feminism-happened.html

=============
(Again...)

Alpha are strutting around getting sex.

Beta (a little marginal sexually) conspire with gamma (full marginal, sexually).

Together beta and gamma are able to topple the alpha.

Now --if the critters are smart enough to memorize pattern-- the cycle will continue.

The beta will become the alpha, the top portion of the gamma will become the new beta and will conspire with the gamma to oust the latest alpha.

That coalition-conspiring game is called politics. Chimps do it; dolphins do it; various monkey species do it. Other species form political coalition --as a way of keeping out-group males away from captured females-- but don't have as much internal coup d eta vibe; eg lions(who run the young males['beta' in this instance] off effectively), cheetah males.

I assert --and I'm not alone-- that the AlphBetGam(/Ome) Dynamic snowballed into a runaway train that selected for the super amount of intellect humans have now. It wasn't simply tool use or the cold that selected for the craftiest pups from our litters.

I assert that now that cycle of coup d etas has snowballed and undermined men themselves. Specifically the ABG Snowball made us so infantile (through the snowball of ousting chiefs) that we fell under the most aggressive/masculine females.

This really shouldn't be that confusing or controversial.

^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^
==============

Pro-fem is not suppose to make any sense; it's not trying to.

It is the side effect of the techno snowball (ever piling up antlers of human male competition waged over the hen house) allowing runt males to win the ascendancy battles.

Once the runt males took over the dog pack, the adult females of the pack --the "bitches" (heh)-- were the only pack members left that still had adult-like fangs.

Small and feminine --ie inept and daft-- as these fangs were (and are) they are still the biggest teeth left in the pack, given that the males have seen to their own neutering through their techno-supported battles. With the snowballing power of females in society/ the family --and the profound (not understood by me or anyone else) psychology and hormone shaping implications of that--the males have further become neutered.

All the "politics" and "philosophy" of the last few centuries are just the barking and howling noises at "the kill" as the bitches (the only real adults left in the pack) nip the runt males (the only type of male left in the white human dog-pack) into compliance.

Since these philosophical and political beliefs are just barking and howling noises --the 'grrs' at "the kill"-- it is not surprising these philosophies are self contradicting ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the time. They're not trying to make any sense.

I don't know why everyone doesn't already know this for themselves.

Oh!... The reason is the neo cortex has _already_ become extinct. The couple of freaks like me are like so many Neanderthal roaming alone in the final days of that breed...

Death to democracy!

=======